Housing and Technology: The Mobile Home

Transcription

Brooklyn Law School
BrooklynWorks
Faculty Scholarship
1977
Housing and Technology: The Mobile Home
Experience
Bailey Kuklin
Follow this and additional works at: http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty
Part of the Housing Law Commons, Other Law Commons, and the Science and Technology
Commons
Recommended Citation
44 Tenn. L. Rev. 765 (1977)
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized
administrator of BrooklynWorks. For more information, please contact matilda.garrido@brooklaw.edu.
HOUSING AND TECHNOLOGY: THE
MOBILE HOME EXPERIENCE
BAILEY H. KUKLIN*
1.
II.
INTRODUCTION ...............................
THE NATURE OF THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE
RELATIONSHIPS OF PARTIES AFFECTED BY MOBILE
HOME S
A.
B.
. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
....
768
Owner-Industry Relationship .............
769
1. Deficient Construction ............
2. Inadequate Service .....................
...
......
3. Poor Financing
770
772
774
Owner-Park Relationship ................
783
1.
2.
3.
4.
783
Landlord-Tenant Problems ...........
785
.....
.
...
...
..........
P ark R ules
...
788
.. .........
Park F ees .. .. ...
790
Quality of Park and Management .......
791
C. Owner-Government Relationship ...........
Housing Regulations ..........
2. T axation ..........................
Park-Government Relationship ..............
i.
D.
III.
766
......
..
791
795
801
THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING MOBILE
.......
H OM ES ...............
802
802
805
....
A.
Realty-Personalty Confusion ..............
B.
Supply and Demand Pressures
C.
Public Attitudes Concerning Mobile Homes and
O w n ers
....
.................
....
.
.........
1. Insufficient Taxation .................
2. Undesirable Characteristics of Mobile
Home Dwellers .......................
3. Objectionable Physical Appearance of
Mobile Homes and Parks .................
. 809
810
812
819
B.S., University of Nebraska; J.D., University of Michigan; Associate
Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School.
The author would like to express his appreciation to the following students
who helped with the research for this article: Deborah 0. Cantrell, Rochelle M.
Corson, Pamela Keen Driver, Daniel J. Goodman, Kathleen A. Lane, and John
J. Rashak.
TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 44
4. Other Criticisms
5. Effects of Misconceptions
IV.
821
824
CURRENT REMEDIES FOR THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING
MOBILE HOMES
A.
B.
C.
V.
826
Owner Solutions to Problems with the Industry. 826
Owner Solutions to Problems with Parks .
831
5..
Owner and Park Solutions to Problems with the
Government
........
.. . . .. .....
833
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION: ELIMINATE
THE CAUSES OF MOBILE HOME PROBLEMS
834
A.
B.
C.
VI.
Realty-Personalty Confusion
835
837
Public Attitudes Concerning Mobile Homes and
Owners
838
CONCLUSION
842
I.
INTRODUCTION
In striking contrast to the technological advances radically
changing the processes by which man satisfies his other basic
needs, housing has undergone little evolutionary change since the
advent of the steel-framed, multi-storied building. As has been
true for centuries, housing is still primarily built by hand at the
site, and although the incorporation of new sources of energy and
materials has been significant, there is little about modern dwellings that a person from several hundred years ago could not easily
comprehend.' While in other areas improved products and services have become more available and relatively less expensive,
housing is in short supply and is prohibitively expensive to an
increasing number of families.'
The development of modular and mobile homes has been a
notable exception to the lack of innovation in housing. Modular
construction, due to a less marked economic advantage, has not
yet met with as great success and is far less in evidence in most
1.
How very little, since things were made,
Things have altered in the building trade.
R. KIPUNG, A Truthful Song, in Tt REWARDS AND FAIRIES 57 (1926).
2. The cost is prohibitive for most families even when the more economical
multi-family dwellings are included. Flippen, Constitutionalityof Zoning Ordinances Which Exclude Mobile Homes, 12 AM. Bus. L.J. 15-16 (1974).
19771
THE MOBILE HOME EXPERIENCE
areas.3 Mobile homes, on the other hand, exist in or near most
communities.
The mobile home, a form of housing considerably different
from more traditional types, has met with various degrees of success. After World War l1 the modern mobile home, having a width
of at least eight feet and including bathroom and kitchen facilities, began to emerge.' In recent years up to one-half of all new
single family housing has been mobile homes; altogether they
accommodate nearly ten million Americans.! Although mobile
homes are neither designed for nor purchased by lower-income
families alone,7 their low price tag is the primary explanation for
their success.' Mobile homes are virtually the only form of new
3. See D. MANDELKER & R. MONTGOMERY, HOUSING IN AMERICA 407-09
(1973).
4. See generally Andracheck, Mobile Homes: Some Historical Notes, in
HOUSING CIsis AND RESPONSE 6-11 (E. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971); D. Cowgill, Mobile Homes 1-12 (1941) (unpublished dissertation in University of Pennsylvania Library); L. Landis, Urban Life Styles 14-78 (1974) (unpublished thesis
in University of Iowa Library).
5. See B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, THE LAW OF MOBILE HOMES 15 (3d ed.
1974) (45% in 1972); Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Mobile Home
Financing: Twenty-Third Annual Survey 4 (1973) [hereinafter cited as Mobile
Home Financing] (48% in 1973). The number of mobile home shipments peaked
in 1972-73, and thus perhaps the percentage of mobile homes in the single family
housing market has also declined since that time. Manufactured Housing Institute, Quick Facts About the Manufactured Housing Industry 12 (1975)
[hereinafter cited as Quick Facts].
6. The exact number of people living in mobile homes is subject to dispute. Compare Hearings on Housing and Urban Development Legislation Before the Subcomm. on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 93d Cong., lst Sess. 839 (1973) (statement
of Rep. Louis Frey, Jr.) [hereinafter cited as 1973 Hearings] (7 million people),
with Satterfield, Mobile Homes: The Current Market Place, J. Com. BANK
LENDING, May 1969, at 37-38 (13 million people) and Porter, Priceis About Right
on Mobile Housing, Clev. Plain Dealer, June 7, 1976, § B, at 9 (9.9 million
families).
7. Mobile homes costing as much as $40,000 are not uncommon. Comarow, The Surprising New Look of Mobile Homes, MoNEY, Oct. 1975, at 92.
8. The per square foot cost of a mobile home is about one-half the cost of
a conventional house. Porter, Extra Costs in Buying a Mobile Home, Clev. Plain
Dealer, June 8, 1976, § C, at 9. See Fichtn,-. The Mobile Home Dilemma, 14
A.F. JAG L. REV. 164 (1973); Federal Home Loan Bank Board, A Study of the
Mobile Home Industry 9 (2d printing 1973) [hereinafter cited as Mobile Home
Industryi; Mobile Home Financing, supra note 5, at 4. See generally Koncelik,
Mobile Home Construction and the Systems Building Concept, in HOUSING
TENESSEE LA W REVIEW
[Vol. 44
housing that families with annual incomes less than $7,500 can
purchase.' Yet the income of the average mobile home owner is
not very different from the overall national average.'"
It might be expected that society would readily accept mobile homes as a solution to the housing crisis, but the reception
of this type of housing has been fraught with problems. The resistance to mobile homes is not surprising because changes frequently encounter opposition from vested interests. The conflict
is often resolved by the market mechanism and, should there
remain imbalances of power among the affected parties, by the
legislatures and the courts. Nonetheless, the magnitude of the
unresolved difficulties still confronting this mode of living is surprising. The purpose of this article is to examine the reasons for
these problems and to consider whether the causes might affect
the acceptability of other types of housing innovations. This article will first survey the nature of the special problems affecting
mobile homes, then look at their causes, and conclude with a
study of both current and potential solutions.
II.
THE NATURE OF THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE RELATIONSHIPS
OF PARTIES AFFECTED
BY MOBILE
HOMES
In analyzing the difficulties involving mobile homes, it is
useful to separate the affected parties into four categories: the
mobile home owner;" the mobile home park owner or management; 2 the mobile home industry;' 3 and local, state, and federal
44-46 (E. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971); Newcomb, Mobile
Home Parks: Part 1, An Analysis of Characteristics, Urban Land Institute 5
(1971).
9. Under the common formula by which a family can afford to spend twice
its annual income on the purchase of housing, a family earning $7,500 per year
can spend $15,000 for housing. In 1969, mobile homes accounted for 98.3% of
the housing sold for $15,000 or less. Levine, Where Can a Home Go?: Mobile
Units Fight for Sites, Christian Sci. Monitor, May 7, 1970, at 2, col. 4. In 1974,
mobile homes accounted for 94% of the housing sold for less than $20,000. Quick
Facts, supra note 5, at 7.
10. See note 392 infra.
11. "Mobile home owners" are defined as those residing in mobile homes
and include owners, renters, or purchasers under a conditional sales contract.
In this article, the term "owner" will refer to "mobile home owner" as so defined.
12. "Mobile home park owner" is defined as the owner and management
of a mobile home park.
13. "Mobile home industry" is defined as all of the primary enterprises
CRISIS AND RESPONSE
19771
governments. Not all the relationships among these parties suffer from imbalances giving cause for complaint.' 4 The major conflicts arise primarily in the relations of the owner to the industry,
the owner to the park, the owner to the government, and the park
to the government.
A.
Owner-Industry Relationship
The owners of mobile homes have often found their relationship with the industry to be painful. Poor construction, poor service, and poor financing have been the primAry causes of owner
dissatisfaction with the industry.' 5 Of these, the first, markedly
deficient construction, is the chief cause for complaint."
that provide the goods and services necessary for the construction and maintenance of a mobile home. Included within this broad term are manufacturers,
dealers, transporters, insurers, financers, setup and maintenance personnel, as
well as the manufacturers and servicers of auxiliary equipment such as skirting, tiedowns, and outbuildings. Excluded are mobile home parks. See generally
I D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, MOBILE HOME AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK
MANAGEMENT 82-90 (1971).
14. There have been occasional breakdowns in cooperation among the four
groups. For example, when the industry seeks authorization from the states to
transport wider models on the highways, it meets the usual hurdles in attempting to change legislative or administrative regulations. Such hurdles, however,
generally have been cleared without undue struggle. It is the contention of the
author that the remaining relationships have endured greater conflicts than
those normally to be expected.
15. Although this section of the article will develop the negative aspects
of the owner-industry relationship, the reader should not conclude that the
average owner regrets his decision to live in a mobile home. Surveys, with
striking consistency, show that owners enjoy living in mobile homes and would
choose to live in them again. See, e.g., E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, MOBILE HOME
PARKS AND COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING 11 (1960); Connett, A Study of
Mobile Home Parks, Spaces, and Residents in Humboldt County, California,
Humboldt State College 34-35 (1966); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., The New
Mobile Home Market 15-16 (1974] thereinafter cited as Mobile Home Market].
16. PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE, THE MOBILE HOME INDUSTRY 29 (1973]
[hereinafter cited as PLI 1973]; D. Kuduk, The Mobile Home Industry in
Minnesota: Study of a Consumer Problem 3-4, 13 (1972) (unpublished study in
Minnesota State Attorney General's Library). See generally M. DRURY, MOBILE
HOMES 33, 52-53 (rev. ed. 1972); CENTER FOR AUTo SAFETY, MOBILE HOMES 87108 (1975) [hereinafter cited as MOBILE HOMmS]; Hoyt, Mobile-Home Builder
Code Often Ignored, Christian Sci. Monitor, Apr. 18, 1972, at 1, col. 2. For a
TENNESSEE LA W REVIEW
IVol. 44
1. Deficient Construction
Surveys of mobile home owners have repeatedly revealed serious discontent with the quality of the homes.' 7 A substantial
majority of mobile homes are defectively manufactured,'8 and the
stresses of transportation often exacerbate such defects. 0
One of the primary causes of construction flaws is poor de2
sign, ' attributable, until recently, to a lack of attention.' Another weakness is the use of inferior materials. 2 Economic considerations induce many companies to purchase cheap components,2" although often a notable exception is the installation of24
high quality household appliances to increase sales appeal.
discLssion of the construction and service problems of one owner, see What
Living in a Mobile Home is Like, CHANGING TiMrs, Oct. 1969, at 7 [hereinafter
cited as CHANGING TIMESJ.
17. 1973 Hearings,supra note 6, at 1145-66; MOBILE HOME, supra note 16,
at 88; Waind & Wright, North Dakota Mobile Home Park Residents: An Attitudinal Survey, Univ. of North Dakota Bureau of Governmental Affairs, Special
Rep. No. 45, at 6 (1975); Fla. Dep't of Community Affairs, Report of Governor's
Task Force on Mobile Homes 18, 25 (1974) [hereinafter cited as Fla. Task
Force]; D. Moore, American Life Styles in Mobile Homes 48 (Nov. 1962) (unpublished report for the Whirlpool Corp. by the Mobile Home Research Group
at Michigan State University).
18. See 1973 Hearings,supra note 6, at 1173; Ohio Commerce Dep't, Mobile Home Buyer's Guide 9 [hereinafter cited as Ohio Guide!: Mobile Home
Market, supra note 15, at 19, 27. But cf. PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, Apr. 1970, at
66-67 [hereinafter cited as PaOFESSIONAL BUILDERI (large proportion of conventional housing also flawed).
19.
See 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 849; Congers, The Mobile Home
TransportationProblem, 11 A.F. JAG L. Rv. 252-53 (1969); Frey & Knop, The
Imperative Need for Uniform Mobile Home Safety Standards, 30 WASH. & LEE
L. REv. 459, 462-63 (1973); Swaback, ProductionDwellings: An Opportunity for
Excellence, LAND ECON., Nov. 1971, at 321, 323. But see Fichtner, supra note 8,
at 166.
20.
MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 90-92.
M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 161-62; MOBLLE HOMES, supra note 16, at
90-91. See generally Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 460.
22. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 93-97; Congers, supra note 19, at 253;
21.
Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles, CONSUMERS' RESEARCH MAGAZINE,
Oct. 1973, at 118-19 [hereinafter cited as CONSUMERS' RESEARCH MAGAZINE!;
Those Wheeled Industrialized Houses, FORTUNE, July 1965, at 174, 178
[hereinafter cited as FORTUNE].
23. Swaback, supra note 19, at 321, 323; see Comarow, supra note 7, at
92, 102.
24. Swaback, supra note 19, at 321, 323.
19771
Shoddy workmanship that results from poor training of unskilled
laborers,2 5 ill-devised incentive pay systems,20 and substandard
quality control" aggravates these basic construction flaws.2
Mobile homes are more dangerous than conventional housing
and are especially susceptible to the perils of fire and wind. Fire
losses result from the use of cheaper but more exacting aluminum
wire, 2 ' highly combustible paneling,10 unreliable heat tape to keep
pipes from freezing, 3 ' faulty furnaces and flues,32 and inflammable plastics, 3' as well as from the inherent shape of the interior.3
There is evidence that the rate of fatalities caused by fires is
generally much greater among occupants of mobile homes than
among traditional housing dwellers.35 The average financial loss
from fires is also much higher.' As a consequence of weak construction, shapes, weights, and lack of solid foundations," there
25.
26.
27.
MOBILE HOMm, supra note 16, at 97-98.
Id. at 98-99.
Id. at 99-100.
28. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 97-104; CONSUMERS' RESEARCH MAGAZINE, supra note 22, at 118-19; FORTUNE, supra note 22, at 174, 178.
29. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 848; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at
130-32; see Hearings on Housing and Urban Development Act of 1972 Before
House Comm. on Banking and Currency, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 435 (1972)
[hereinafter cited as 1972 Hearings]; The Cracks in the Mobile Home Market,
Bus. WEEK, Apr. 14, 1973, at 105 [hereinafter cited as Bus. WEEKI.
30. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 137-40; Comnarow, supra note 7, at
92, 106; see Bus. WEEK, supra note 29, at 105.
31. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 848; 1972 Hearings, supra note 29, at
376, 435.
376, 435.
33. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 140-44; cf. Wandres, What's New in
Mobile Homes?, RErmTEMENT LIViNG, Apr. 1975, at 31-32 (some plastics used give
off toxic fumes when they burn).
34. Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 106.
366, 369, 374-75, 433, 435; Margolis, Mobile Homes and the Rural Poor: An
Alternative Non-Solution, Rural Housing Alliance 16 (1973); Project, Study of
Mobile and Modular Housing: A Marketing Research Class Project, Univ. of
Tenn. Technical Assistance Center 26 (1972) [hereinafter cited as UT Project];
see Comarow, supra note 7, at 106.
366, 369, 374-75, 433, 435; McDonnell, This Land is Whose Land?: Mobile Boxes
of Ticky-Tacky, PROGRESSIVE, May 1974, at 25-26.
37. See 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 849; 1972 Hearings, supra note 29,
[Vol. 44
is also a greater incidence of wind damage."' Thus mobile homes
are subjected to disproportionately higher insurance rates than
other forms of housing. 9
2.
Inadequate Service
Deficient servicing has been one of the greatest weaknesses
of the industry.'" A large percentage of owners discover defects
within the first year, request service, and learn that the mobile
home either will not be repaired within a reasonable time or will
not be repaired at all." The frustration from such poor service has
on occasion been known to be so great that some owners have
chosen to allow the mobile homes to be repossessed rather than
to continue the struggle for relief. 2
The local dealers are partly to blame for the weak service
record. Some dealers believe followup service is unimportant,"
and others do not have the facilities to provide such service.44 The
integrity of some dealers has also been called into question; 5 one
at 369, 435-36: MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 153-55; McDonnell, supra note
36, at 25-26.
369, 435-46. See generally Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, U.S. Dep't of
Defense, Pub. No. TR-75, Protecting Mobile Homes from High Winds (1974).
39. 1973 Hearings, Supra note 6, at 849; Bus. WEEK, supra note 29, at 105;
Halverson, Low Cost Housing-It's on Wheels, Christian Sci. Monitor, Aug. 8,
1968, at 14, col, 3; Porter, supra note 8, at 9; see MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16,
at 46-47.
40. M. DRuRY, supra note 16, at 33, 70; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at
109-124; see 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 1145-66; Andrachek, Two Years and
Eight Months in a Mobil, Home: A PersonalCase Study, in HOUSING CmsIs AND
RESPONSE 32 (E. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971); Fla. Task Force, supra note 17,
at 17.
41. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 1140, 1173; MOBILE HOMES, supra note
16, at 110-11; Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 20; see Wade v. Chariot
Trailer Co., 331 Mich. 576, 50 N.W.2d 162 (1951). For a discussion of the misadventures of one owner, see CHANGING TIMES, supra note 16, at 7.
42. 197? Hearings, supra note 6, at 1199; MOaLE HOMES, supra note 16,
at 120.
43. See M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 43.
44. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 25-26, 120. See generally D. Kuduk,
supra note 16, at 14.
45. MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 25-28, 30; Is There an Opportunity
for Builders in the Mobile-Home Market?, HOUSE & HOME, Jan. 1968, at 60-61
jhereinafter cited as HousE & HOMEI; Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at
25; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 3-4, 15-16.
19771
survey found a significant percentage of owners apprehensive
about purchasing another mobile home from the same dealer."
The adequacy of the manufacturer's warranty has also been
criticized. 7 Ambiguously worded and designed to protect the
manufacturer rather than the consumer, 8 most warranty provisions have disclaimed all implied warranties, including that of
merchantability, and have left the owner with little other protection.49 The warranties have not covered many defects" and historically have been of short duration, typically ninety days.' Compliance with the terms of the warranties has been difficult52 and
the prescribed procedures appear to be designed to deter claims.
The mobile home must be returned to the factory; the transportation charges must be prepaid; and the company must acknowledge its responsibility for the defect.
Even if the owner seeks repairs that arguably fall within the
terms of the warranty, service is not assured. Manufacturers have
told owners to look to the dealers for relief, and the dealers in turn
have pointed to the manufacturers.-" Critics contend that such
46. See Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 13.
47. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 1173; Warrantieson Mobile Homes Are
Target of F.T.C. Action, N.Y. Times, Dec. 27, 1974, § L, at 27, col. 1. For a
description of the warranty service process, see Manufactured Housing Institute, Mobile Homes 56-57 (1972) [hereinafter cited as Mobile Homes]. The
federal National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974
has corrected many of the problems related to the manufacturer's warranty. See
42 U.S.C. §§ 5401-5426 (1976).
48. See SHEPARD'S MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS 32-33 (1975)
[hereinafter cited as SHEPARD'S]; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 112.
49. MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 112-13; Congers, supra note 19, at
256.
370; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 463.
51.
1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 849; 1972 Hearings, supra note 29, at
370; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 112; Congers, supra note 19, at 256; Frey
& Knop, supra note 19, at 463; Task Force on Mobile Homes, Report to Gov.
William G. Milliken, Michigan Dep't of Commerce 52 (1971) [hereinafter cited
as Mich. Task Force].
370; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 463.
53. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 849, 1140; 1972 Hearings, supra note
29, at 370; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 113.
54. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 1140-41, 1175; MOBILE HOMES, supra
note 16, at 122-23; SHEPARD'S, supro note 48, at 33; Comarow, supra note 7, at
92, 104; McDonnell, supra note 36, at 25-26; Porter, New Standards Should
[ Vol. 44
buckpassing is a tactic used to stall repairs until the warranties
expire." Once a claim is recognized, and service under the warranty is promised, other difficulties may arise. Great delay often
follows," and when the service is finally delivered, the incompetency of the repairmen often prevents substantial improvement 7
Claims against transporters for damages during moves have
encountered similar barriers. ' For example, "sweetheart" relationships between repairmen and transporters have led either to
questionable findings that the carriers were not negligent or to
unrealistically low insurance settlements insufficient to pay for
reasonable repairs? 9
3.
Poor Financing
Between two-thirds and four-fifths of all new mobile homes
are purchased by means of financing, through either the dealer
or other lenders. "' The high cost of the usual financing arrangeMake Trailers Safer, Clev. Plain Dealer, June 10, 1976, § D, at 14; Mich. Task
Force, supra note 51, at 52; 1). Kuduk, supra note 16, at 14.
55. Momuia HOMES., supra note 16, at 120-21; Bus. WEEK, supra note 29,
at 105; CONSUMwRs' RESEARCH MAGAZINE, supra note 22. at 118-19.
Dealers themselves have had trouble with manufacturers who refuse to
respect warranties. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 118-19. On the other hand,
manufacturers have been gouged by dealers who do the warranty work and then
overcharge the manufacturers. Id. at 119-20.
56. Hearings on Bills to Prouide for Purchase of Mobile Homes Under
Veterans Administration Guaranteed Loan Program Before the Subcomm. on
Housing of the House Comm. on Veterans Affairs, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 3705
(1970) Ihereinafter cited as VA Hearingsl; see PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE, MOBILE HoMEs 90 (1971) [hereinafter cited as PLI 19711.
57. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 121-22. Repairmen training programs
are beginning to alleviate this problem. Id. at 122; cf. 1973 Hearings, supra note
6, at 1198-99 (few manufacturers offer specialized training in repair and maintenance); MoRIE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 115 (poor setups are often caused by
inexperienced laborers); PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 90-91 (mobile heating plant
servicers are not always well trained); Fichtner, supra note 8, at 171 (transporters have lack of well-trained drivers).
58. Congers, supra note 19, at 255; Fichtner, supra note 8, at 167; D.
Kuduk, supra note 16, at 14. See generally B. HODES & G. RoBERSON, supra note
5, at 363-65 (and cases cited therein).
59. Congers, supra note 19, at 255; Fichtner, supra note 8, at 168.
60. See Osman, Mobile Homes: The Third Alternative, AM. INST. OF ARCHITECTS J., Dec. 1971, at 42, 44-45 (two-thirds); The Changing Emphasis on
Mobile Home Financing,FED. RES. BANK OF ATLANTA MONTHLY REV., May 1967,
at 58, 62 (75-80%) [hereinafter cited as ATLANTA RES. BANK[; Immobile Mobile
19771
ment causes dissatisfaction among borrowers and is one of the
principal hindrances to an expanded mobile home market. Dealers recognize this as their major problem,"
Mobile home financing combines attributes of automobile
financing and real estate lending." The vast majority of these
arrangements are consumer installment loans, usually in the form
of conditional sales contracts or chattel mortgages, 3 and only a
small percentage are real estate mortgages. 4 Because most mobile homes are not considered realty for financing purposes, they
cannot qualify for the lower rates and better terms of real estate
mortgages."
Financing may be arranged under mortgage insurance programs of the Federal Housing Administration" or the Veterans
Homes, HousE & HOME, Nov. 1959, at 64, 90 (80%) [hereinafter cited as HOUSE
& HOME]; The Mobile-Modular Home Industry: An Answer to the Housing
Shortage, Wall Street Transcript, Sept. 21, 1970, at 21,799-800 (80%)
[hereinafter cited as Shortage Answer]; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 22 (twothirds).
For a description of retail mobile home financing and litigation, see B.
HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 285-88. See generally Manufactured
Housing Institute, Manufactured Housing Financing: Twenty-Fourth Annual
Survey (1975) [hereinafter cited as Mobile Home Surveyl.
61. Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 30; see Housing: New Chance
for Mobile Homes, Bus. WEEK, June 28, 1976, at 96-97 [hereinafter cited as Bus.
WEEK1.
62. Coha, Mobile Home Financing, BANKER'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE, Aug.
15, 1967, at 34, 56.
63. Greenwald, Mobile Homes in New England, NEw ENGLAND ECON.
REv., May/June 1970, at 2, 15; Matthews, Owning a Mobile Home: 1,000,000
Buyers by 1975?, MORTGAGE BANKER, Nov. 1972, at 64, 70; Mobile Homes and
the Housing Supply, FED. RES. BANK OF CHICAGO Bus. CONDITIONS, Nov. 1972,
at 2, 13 [hereinafter cited as CHICAGO RES. BANKI; Newcomb, supra note 8, at
22.
64. Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 13; CHICAGO RES. BANK, supra note 63,
at 2, 13; see Woods & Bower, The Financingof Mobile Homes, in HOUSING CRIsIs
AND RESPONSE 50 (E. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971). Consumer loans for mobile
homes are more profitable than real estate mortgages and thus have been
preferred by lenders. Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 15.
65. Wood, Mobile Homes: New Financing for the Mortgage Banker,
MORTGAGE BANKER, Nov. 1969, at 42, 49; Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 15.
One commentator has recommended against financing mobile homes that
can be considered realty because they are sufficiently attached to the owner's
land. Satterfield, supra note 6, at 37, 42.
66. 12 U.S.C. § 1703 (1970).
[Vol. 44
Administration, 7 or financial assistance may be obtained from
the Farmers Home Administration." Thus far, however, these
federal programs have had limited success because their requirements are more demanding than those of regular loans." The
restrictions imposed by these federal programs include nonparticipation in the loan by the dealer;70 a minimum warranty term
of one year;7 L warranty service where the mobile home is parked
rather than at the factory;7 2 conformance to a uniform mobile
home construction code;" noncompetitive maximums for interest
rates;74 and considerable governmental red tape.75 As a result,
financing under a federal program is clearly less profitable to
dealers and lenders. The industry, therefore, is discouraged from
promoting federal financing programs.
Mobile home consumer financing has been particularly lucrative for commercial lenders.7 Since such loans pay higher in-
67. 38 U.S.C. § 1819 (1970).
68. 42 U.SC. § 1490(g) (Supp. V 1975). See generally SHEPARD'S, supra
note 48, at 41-43.
69. FHA and VA mobile home loans have risen to only 3 percent of the
total mobile homes shipped from manufacturers as of June 30, 1975. HUD
CHAI.LENGE, Dec. 1975, at 33.
70. PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 43-44; see text accompanying note 494
infra.
71. Meyer, Purgatory on Wheels, RAMPARTS, Aug. 1974, at 33, 38.
72. id.
73. See 24 C.F.R. § 201.520 (1977); Am. Nat'l Standards Inst., Standard
for Mobile Homes A119.1 (1972).
74. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 855-57; C. GIBSON, POLIcY ALTERNATIVES FOR MOBILE HOMES 43-45; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 50; PLI 1973,
supra note 16, at 42; Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 70; McDonnell, supra note
:16, at 25, 27-28; see Weitzman, Mobile Homes: High Cost Housing in the Low
Income Market, 10 J. EcON. ISSUES 576, 587 (1976).
75. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 43-45; PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 422-43;
Clark, A Visit To a Mobile Home Park, MORTGAGE BANKER, Nov. 1972, at 74,
76; Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 70.
76. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 41; PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 42;
Anderson, A Big-Scale Mobile Home Financing Operation, BURROUGHS CLEARINc( HOUSE, Aug. 1959, at 46; Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 72; Meredith,
Loans on Mobile Homes? We Did All Right, BANKING, Mar. 1959, at 51, 118;
Weitzman, supra note 74, at 586-87; Mobile Home Sales Roll Toward $3-Billion,
Bus. WEEK, Jan. 24, 1970. at 74.
19771
terest than other loans," are easily processed,"5 can be fully protected,7" and are short term," some lenders have considered mobile home loans the best consumer loans they handle." Normally
mobile home dealers enter into the agreement with the purchasers and then sell the contracts to financial institutions at a
profit." Banks," finance companies,' credit unions,' savings and
loan associations," and life insurance companies 7 have all entered the field.
While consumer financing arrangements generally have been
advantageous to lenders, the overall benefit to the mobile home
purchaser is dubious. The positive aspects are considered to be
easier loan financing during tight money periods;" easier,
77. Aiken, For the Long Haul: Mobile Homes are the Likeliest Form of
Middle-Income Shelter, BARRON'S, Oct. 29, 1973, at 3; Dart, The Potentialities
of Mobile Home Financing, BURROUGHS CLEARING HOUSE, June 1957, at 42.
Since most owners retire their loans early, the "rule of 78s" increases the
effective interest rate. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 45; see Roach, Actual
Lending on Mobile Homes: What to Know Before You Start, FED. HOME LOAN
BANK BOARD J., May 1970, at 16-17.
78. Dart, supra note 77, at 42; Silbernagel, Credit Insurance for Mobile
Homes: Profit Potential for Mortgage Bankers,
MORTGAGE BANKER,
Nov. 1972,
at 24, 26.
79. Dart, supra note 77, at 42; Matthews, supra note 63, at 64-72; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24, 26.
80. Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 72; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24,
26.
81. Breeze & Altman, Mobile Home Financing, J. COMMERCIAL, BANK
LENDING, Feb. 1970, at 31, 35; Dart, supra note 77, at 42; Matthews, supra note
63, at 64, 72; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24, 26. But see Wilson, Financing
Mobile Homes: 'A Natural for Mortgage Bankers', MORTGAGE
1972, at 4; ATLANTA RES. BANK, supra note 60, at 58, 60.
82.
STAN.
BANKER,
Nov.
Note, Mobilehomes: Present Regulation and Needed Reforms, 27
L. REv. 159, 163 (1974); D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 5-6.
Indirect loans are preferred by financial institutions because they are more
profitable, more easily administered, and often more protected. MOBILE HOMES,
supra note 16, at 39. Such indirect loans are usually more costly to the borrower.
Id. at 38-39. But see Jung, Dealer Pricing Practices and Finance Charges for
New Mobile Homes, J. Bus., Oct. 1966, at 430, 438.
83. National banks are authorized under 12 U.S.C. § 24 (1864). State
banks are similarly authorized. See, e.g., CAL. FIN. CODE § 1223 (West 1951).
84. See Mobile Home Survey, supra note 60, at 1.
85. See Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 70.
86. Federal savings and loan associations are authorized under 12 U.S.C.
§ 1464 (1970). State chartered savings and loan associations are similarly authorized. See, e.g., CAL. FIN. CODE § 7187 (West Supp. 1977).
87. Wood, supra note 65, at 42, 44.
88. C. GmsON, supra note 74, at 42; Aiken, supra note 77, at 3; Greenwald,
supra note 63, at 2, 13; Mayer, Mobile Homes Move Into the Breach, FORTUNE,
[Vol. 44
cheaper, and more rapid loan processing;" easier resale of the
mobile home; "' and avoidance of closing or settlement costs.9 The
disadvantages include computation of the interest rates by the
add-on method that contributes to very high equivalent rates 2
and results in a slow buildup of equity; 3 shorter loan periods than
for conventional housing;" and fewer protections for the borrowers than exist under real estate mortgages. Thus, the disadvanMar. 1970, at 126, 130; Bank Financingof Mobile Homes, FED. RES. BULL., Mar.
1971, at 179; Shortage Answer, supra note 60, at 21,799-800. But see Garino,
Mobile-Home Shipments Lag; Makers Blame Economy, Too Many Rivals, Too
Few Parks, Wall Street J., June 19, 1970, at 9, col. 1; Nenneman, Mobile Homes
Invade Suburbia, Christian Sci. Monitor, July 27, 1967, at 10, col. 1. The ready
availability of financing, however, has not existed during the recent financial
crisis beginning in 1974, when, primarily because of the lack of funds for credit,
up to 35% of the dealers have folded. Mobile Homes: Paying the Piper, FoRBEs,
Apr. 15, 1975, at 20 thereinafter cited as FORBESI. See Lichtenstein, MobileHome Business Has Fallen on Difficult Times, N.Y. Times, Oct. 25, 1975, § L,
at 30, col. 1.
89. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 128; Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at
53; Matthews, supra note 63, at 70-72. See generally HOUSE & HOME, supra note
60, at 90.
9). Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 56.
91. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 37.
92. Simple interest rate equivalents have been reported as high as 14%,
Magid, The Mobile Home Industry, FINANCIAL ANALYSTS J., Sept.-Oct. 1969, at
29, 31; The Great American House Party Is Over, FORBES, Nov. 1, 1974, at 22,
26 [hereinafter cited as FoRBEs]; 16%, Bus. WEEK, supra note 29, at 105; 18%,
C. GIBsON, supra note 74, at 5; and 21.5%, Meyer, supra note 71, at 33, 38. The
use of simple interest terms is being adopted. Dennis, The Growing Opportunity
in Mobile Home Financing, BURROUGHS CLEARING HOUSE, Oct. 1969, at 28-29;
Osman, supra note 60, at 42, 44; The Mobile Home: Rising New Giant in Housing, HOUSE & HOME, June 1963, at 136, 142 [hereinafter cited as HoUsE &
HOMEI. For a historical explanation of the use of add-on interest, see Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24, 26-28.
93. See Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 57-58; Osman, supra note 60,
at 42, 44. The use of simple interest rates will facilitate a more rapid rise in
equity value. Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 57-88; Osman, supra note 60,
at 42, 44.
94. The terms have lengthened from 3 years in the 1940's, Woods & Bower,
supra note 64. at 52, to 15 years at the present, M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 129;
ILI 1973, supra note 16, at 42. Government assured loans for doublewides can
he for up to 20 years. 12 U.S.C. § 1703(b) (1970); 38 U.S.C. § 1819(d)(2) (1970);
42 U.S.C. § 1490(g)(b) (Supp. V 1975). See generally Mobile Home Market,
95. See MORILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 43-44; McDonnell, supra note 36,
at 25, 28; CHIcAco RES. BANK, supra note 63, at 2, 13.
19771
tages often outweigh the advantages.
A primary explanation offered to justify financial arrangements disadvantageous to borrowers is the uncertainty of the
future resale value of mobile homes.'" Although the life expectancy of the homes has been estimated to be from six or seven
years97 to well over twenty years," lenders tend to use liberal
estimations of depreciation in order to protect their investments
in case of repossession. The quality of mobile homes, however,
has improved substantially over the last few decades, especially
during the last several years; therefore it is impossible to ascertain the actual life expectancy. 9 Estimates are further influenced
by such variables as lack of standardized appraising systems,'""
diversity of model sizes, types, and styles,'0 ' sale prices below
suggested retail prices,'10 climate,' " quality of maintenance, '
degree of site development"' and the nature of its location, ",
ownership rather than rental of the site,' 7 and inclusion in the
sales price of items other than the home itself.'"" Depreciation
rates, as a result, have been determined according to widely dif96. Reimensnyder, Mortgage Financingof Mobile Homes, BULL. OF RoBMORRIs ASSOCIATES, Apr. 1964, at 337.
97. Osman, supra note 60, at 45; Mobile Homes: "Tin Boxes" or a Housing
Solution?, APPALACHIA, May/June 1971, at 8 [hereinafter cited as APPALACIAI.
98. VA Hearings, supra note 56, at 3523; Woods & Bower, supra note 64,
at 53; APPALACHIA, supra note 97, at 1, 9-10; CHIcAGo REs. BANK, supra note 63,
at 8; Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at 5.
99. See Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 53; Comarow, supra note 7, at
100-02; If You're Thinking of Buying a Mobile Home, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP.,
Feb. 14, 1972, at 84 [hereinafter cited as U.S. NEws].
100. See Fla. Task Force, supra note 17, at 13.
101. See APPALACHIA, supra note 97, at 9; Fla. Task Force, supra note 17,
at 13.
102. See Fla. Task Force, supra note 17, at 13.
103. See APPALACHIA, supra note 97, at 8.
104. See id. at 8-9. See generally Woods & Morris, The Mobile Home in
the Context of Neighborhood and the Community, in HOUSING CRIsIs AND
RESPONSE 39 (E. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971).
105. See Morris & Woods, Outlook for the Future: Cautious Assessment
or Fearless Forecasting?, in HOUSING CRISIS AND RESPONSE 63 (E. Morris & M.
Woods eds. 1971); Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 53; Comarow, supra note
7, at 92, 100; APPALACHIA, supra note 97, at 11; UT Project, supra note 35, at 60.
106. See APPALACHIA, supra note 97, at 1, 9, 11; Mobile Home Industry,
supra note 8, at 5.
107. See C. GIBSoN, supra note 74, at 8, 41,
108. See Woods & Bower, supra note 64, at 52.
ERT
[Vol. 44
fering actuarial schedules, ranging from fifty percent the first
year and ten percent annually thereafter' "u to as low as about
three percent the first year and two percent annually thereafter."0
Other factors used to defend the financing policies include
the inability of mobile homes to qualify for real estate mortgages"' and the concerns generated by the negative stereotypes
of mobile home purchasers."I2 The relative youth of many borrowers, their small initial equity, and their lower incomes have also
been advanced as partial explanations." 3
The perceived risks of mobile home lending, however, do not
fully explain the magnitude of such poor financing terms." In
fact, lenders appear to have adequately insulated themselves
from many of these risks. In general, the average credit dollar loss
for mobile homes has been very small."5 Mobile home purchasers
have a record of favorable delinquency and repossession rates." '
109.
See CONSTRUrlON REV.,
Feb.
1965, at 7 [hereinafter cited as
CONSTRUCTION REV.]; A Report on Trailer Living, CONSUMER REP., Mar. 1956,
at 118 [hereinafter cited as CONSUMER REP.].
110. See APPAL.ACHIA, supra note 97, at 11. It has been suggested that today
mobile homes may even appreciate in value. CHICAGO REs. BANK, supra note 63,
at 18; Bus. WEEK, supro note 61, at 97. In any case, the trend is toward a
recognition of smaller depreciation rates. See also Mobile Homes: An Idea
Whose Time has Come?, FoRBES, May 15, 1976, at 54 [hereinafter cited as
FoRxsj.
11. See UT Project, supra note 35, at 91.
112. See PLI 1973, .pra note 16, at 41; Coha, supra note 62, at 34, 46;
ATLANTA REs. BANK, supra note 60, at 58, 61. See also text accompanying notes
363-69 infra.
113. See Greenwald, supra note 63, at 21. As to whether or not they in fact
have lower incomes, see generally authorities cited in note 392 infra.
114. See Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 21.
115, See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 41; Breeze & Altman, supra
note 81. at 31, 35-36; Dart, supra note 77, at 42; Dennis, supra note 92, at 28,
76; McDonnell, supra note 36, at 25, 27; Meredith, supra note 76, at 51.
116. See VA Hearings, supra note 56, at 3567; Breeze & Altman, supra
note 81, at 31, 35-36; Willatt, More Homes on Wheels, BARRON'S, Mar. 25, 1957,
at 5; Shortage Answer, supra note 60, at 21,799-800; The Mobile Home Industry,
Wall Street Transcript., Mar. 16, 1970, at 19,930-31 [hereinafter cited as
Industry]; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 24. But see MOBILE HOMES, supra note
16. at 41; ATLANTA RES. BANK, supra note 60, at 58, 60. Sharply increased repossession rates have occurred periodically due to changes in (1) the standard
model, see Boynton, Financingthe Mobile Home Industry, FINANCIAL ANALYSTS
J., Mar./Apr. 1960, at 87: and (2) the recent recession, see Bus. WEEK, supra
note 61, at 96; FORBES, supra note 91, at 20; Lichtenstein, supra note 88, at 30;
Mobile Home Survey, supra note 60, at 14.
19771
Lenders are also protected by full recourse provisions against
dealers from whom loans are purchased." ' More recently, lenders
have increased the protection of their investments by requiring
credit insurance. 118
There are factors other than the concern for the riskiness of
the investment that contribute to the high cost of mobile home
financing. The dealers effectively pass on to their borrowers a
disproportionate share of their own financing expenses. Most
dealers finance their inventories at relatively low rates from lenders who expect, in exchange for the low rates, to obtain much of
the consumer loans that follow." ' Additionally, as consideration
for passing along their consumer loan business, the dealers are
allowed to participate in the income from the finance charge, 20
reportedly by as much as thirty percent.'' Prepaid insurance policies of various types, often required or highly recommended, become part of the initial purchase price and are financed at high
rates.' 2 Dealers receive further commissions from the insurance
companies sometimes equaling fifty percent of the cost of the
policies.'" Sales taxes and auxiliary equipment regularly are
117. See 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 223; Woods & Bower,
supra note 64, at 51; Lubell, Legal Aspects of Mobile Home Lending by Institutional Lenders, 45 L.A.B. BULL. 408 (1970); ATLANTA REs. BANK, supra note 60,
at 58, 60; CHICAGo Ris. BANK, supra note 63, at 2, 15; Silbernagel, supra note
78, at118.
24, 30;
SeeNewcomb,
Woods & Bower,
supra note 64, at 51; Lubell, supra note 117, at
415; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24, 30; CHIcAGo RES. BANK, supra note 63, at
2, 15; Margolis, supra note 35, at 23.
119. See 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 857; Woods & Bower, supra note
64, at 51; Roach, supra note 77, at 16-17; Weitzman, supra note 74, at 576, 586;
Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at 23; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 23. See
generally B. HoDEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 284-85, 288-91.
120. See PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 42; Boynton, supra note 116, at 87,
89; Breeze & Altman, supra note 81, at 31, 43; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at
24, 28; Weitzman, supra note 74, at 576, 586.
121. See Breeze & Altman, supra note 81, at 31, 35. This participation is
a reason dealers might resist long-term, low interest financing. HOUSE & HOME,
supra note 92, at 136, 142. In 1970 it was reported that borrowers rarely were
being charged reduced rates for direct bank loans even though there was no
dealer participation. Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 21-22.
122. See Boynton, supra note 116, at 87, 89; Comarow, supra note 7, at
92, 106; McDonnell, supra note 36, at 25, 28; Satterfield, supra note 6, at 37,
42; Margolis, supra note 35, at 23.
123. See Breeze & Altman, supra note 81, at 31, 42-43. For a justification
of these commissions, see Fla. Task Force, supra note 17, at 10-12.
[Vol. 44
parts of the package and become similarly financed.'24 Rather
than purchasing consumer loans directly from dealers, many
lenders obtain loans from service companies that are formed to
act as brokers for the loans in exchange for commissions of about
one-third of the finance charge.' 25 Insurance commissions are also
an important part of the income of the service companies."'
In conclusion, the owner may find himself in an ironic position. Although the main reason for purchasing the mobile home
is its low cost, the result of the construction, service, and finance
expenses is that ultimately it may cost nearly as much as a conventional house.'" During the period of financing, the monthly
payments themselves are comparable to those paid for a conventional house or apartment.'2
124. MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 45-46.
125. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 40; see Woods & Bower, supra note
64, at 51; Lubell, supra nc)te 117, at 415; Silbernagel, supra note 78, at 24, 32,
34; CHICAGO RES. BANK, stpra note 63, at 2, 14-15; Newcomb, supra note 8, at
25-26. See generally Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at 30-33.
126. CHIcACo RES. BANK, supra note 63, at 2, 14-15.
127. See Weitzman, supra note 74, at 576, 583,593-94 (mobile homes more
expensive); Bus. WEEK, supra note 29, at 105; The Consumers' Observation
Post, CONSUMER RESEARCH MAGAZINE, July 1973, at 37; cf C. GiRsON, supra note
74, at 5 ("Financing turns a low-cost home into the equivalent of a far more
...); McDonnell, supra note 36, at 25-26 ("low initial cost is
expensive one.
often deceptive"); Smith, Housing in the Seventie.s: Realism vs. Euphoria, REAL
EST. REv., Spring 1971, at 34, 38 (mobile home "can hardly be considered a
bargain").
128. D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 225-26; Woods & Bower,
supra note 64, at 55; Weitzman, supra note 74, at 582; The Business Front,
BARRON'S, June 6, 1966, at 11, 17 [hereinafter cited as BARRoN'sl; Mobile
Homes Capture the Low-Cost Market, Bus. WEEK, May 13, 1972, at 146
[hereinafter cited as Bus. WEEK!; see Cassidy, Book Review, N.Y. Times, Jan.
12, 1975, § 7, at 28. But see A Mobile Home vs. A House: How the Costs
Compare, CHANGINC TIMES, Jan. 1971, at 19, 21 [hereinafter cited as CHAN(;ING
TIMSS I. For comparisons of the costs of owning a mobile home with the costs of
owning other forms of housing, see Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 482-84;
Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 4; Weitzman, supra note 74, at 576, 582-83, 59397; CHANGING TIMES, supra. at 19; Choosing a Mobile Home, CONSUMER BULL.,
Sept. 1968, at 34-35 [hereinafter cited as CONSUMER BULL.]; Texas Dep't of
Community Affairs, Texas Consumer's Guide to Mobile Homes 28-33 (1974)
Ihereinafter cited as Tex, Guidel.
19771
B.
Owner-Park Relationship
About forty percent to seventy-five percent of all mobile
homes are located in mobile home parks. 29' The relationship of
the owner to the park is usually different from the typical
landlord-tenant situation in that the owner is not renting quarters
from the park but is renting only a lot on which to place his own
quarters. Owners consider the difficulties resulting from their association with the park to be second only to difficulties with the
mobile home industry. 1311
1. Landlord-Tenant Problems
Many of the mobile home owner's troubles stem from the fact
that his rights and duties are not usually specified in a lease.':
Owners are normally tenants at will,' periodic tenants,' or mere
licensees subject to eviction on short notice." '4 Therefore, the park
129. See B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 6 (40%); 1 D. NULSEN
& R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 227 (76%); Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 145
(50%): Murray, New Boom in Mobile Homes, DUN'S REV., Oct. 1976, at 53
(40%); U.S. NEws, supra note 99, at 84-85 (25-50%); Industry, supra note 116,
at 19,930-31 (55-70%); Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 9 (56%); Mobile
Home Survey, supra note 60, at 4 (40%); Quick Facts, supra note 5, at 10 (40%).
130. See Quinn, Mobile Home Owners Ask Property Rights Protection,
Lincoln (Neb.) Star, July 17, 1976, at 8; Council on Community Affairs, Fla.
Dep't of Community Affairs, Report of Hearings on Mobile Home Park Operations in Florida 4 (1970) [hereinafter cited as Fla. Hearings[; Fla. Task Force,
supra note 17, at 17. See generally Tyranny in Mobile-Home Land, CONSUMER
REP., July 1973, at 440 [hereinafter cited as CONSUMER REP.]. But see Woods
& Morris, supra note 104, at 36; Waind & Wright, supra note 17, at 7.
131. MontE HOMES, supra note 16, at 54, 59; Note, Closing the Gap:
Protection for Mobile Home Owners, 16 ARIz. ST. L. REV. 101, 105 (1974);
CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440; Waind & Wright, supra note 17, at 4. A
trend may be emerging in favor of written leases. Wehrly, Mobile Home Parks:
Part 2, An Analysis of Communities, Urban Land Inst., 14-15 (1972). State
statutes have been enacted that require written leases. See note 519 infra.
132. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 60; Note, The Community and the
Park Owner Versus the Mobile Home Park Residents: Reforming the LandlordTenant Relationship, 52 B.U.L. REV. 810, 813 (1972) [hereinafter cited as
Landlord-Tenant Relationshipl; Note, The Necessity for Specific State Legislation to Deal with the Mobile Home Park Landlord-Tenant Relationship, 9 GA.
L. REv. 212, 219 (1974) [hereinafter cited as Legislation Necessity].
133. Note, supra note 131, at 105; Note, supra note 82, at 159, 165 n.42.
134. MoBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 54; Note, supra note 131, at 105;
CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440. Some state statutes have been enacted
[Vol. 44
is free to change the terms of the tenancy ' and to evict tenants
for any infractions of those terms.
The consequences of eviction can be severe. 36 Park space is
often scarce,' 7 and many parks are "closed parks" that restrict
entry to those who have purchased their mobile homes from affiliated or other specified dealers.' The result is that an evicted
owner desiring space in the closed park must buy a new mobile
home for the privilege and must pay a noncompetitive price for
that home.' Even if the owner finds another park space for his
mobile home, his worries are not over. Moving a mobile home is
a troublesome and expensive task.4 0 A commercial mover is required by statute,"' the contents of the home must be packed to
withstand the rigors of the road, and the damages of transit can
be costly." 2 Not surprisingly, it may be more reasonable to sell
the home and purchase another at the new location.' Whether
to require termination notice of up to one month. Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 814 (and authorities cited therein).
135. Note, supra note 131, at 105; see Waind & Wright, supra note 17, at
6; Council of Better Business Bureaus, Tips on Buying a Mobile Home 11 (1975).
136. See Lavoie v. Bigwood, 457 F.2d 7, 14 n,16 (1st Cir. 1972).
137. See text accompanying notes 316-18 infra.
138. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 20; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16,
at 66; SHEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 43-44; Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra
note 132, at 217; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 5-6; Hegel, Mobile Home
Zoning, Building and Site Regulations, and Taxation: Implications for Michigan Municipalities, Mich. Municipal League Information Bulletin No. 118, at
10 (1970); D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 11. Nationwide, less than one-third of
the parks have been reported to be "closed" although the actual fraction is
suspected to be higher. Wehrly, supra note 131, at 14. Up to 80% of the parks
in Florida are "closed," MOBILE HOMEs, supra note 16, at 66.
139. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 66. See also Jung, supra note
82, at 430, 438; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-41; The Mobile Scene
Turns to Environment, PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, Aug. 1971, at 51, 56 [hereinafter
cited as PROFESSIONAL BUILD.RsI.
140. Andrachek, supra note 40, at 31; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 65; Note,
supra note 82, at 169; see Note, supra note 131, at 104 n.20. See generally Your
Mobile Home: Move It or Leave It?, CHANGING TIMES, Apr. 1972, at 23. As much
as $4.00 per mile is charged for the move. Porter, supra note 6, at 9.
141. B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 54-55, 360; UT Project,
supra note 35, at 58-59.
142. Andrachek, supra note 40, at 31; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at
440; Quinn, supra note 130, at 8.
143. Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 106; Wang & Travis, The Characteristics, Economic Resources and Housing Preferences of Mobile Home Occupants
19771
the owner moves his home or purchases another, he is subject to
additional expenses. Entrance fees, exit fees, sales commissions,
and other park fees, as well as the other investments in the development of the old lot, can be lost by the relocation. " '
According to some commentators, these problems and the
ease of eviction consequently give the parks "feudal sway" over
the tenants." ' Some managers have been accused of taking abusive advantage of their great power.' 5 In response to this quandary, many owners experience insecurity, fear, apprehension,
despair, and resignation., Believing that they have no other option, the owners often accept unconscionable park rules, fees, and
rent increases without complaint.,'
2.
Park Rules
Stringent rules are commonly promulgated for mobile home
park residents."' Most residents approve of such rules because
in Santa Clara County, Cal., Real Estate Research Bureau, San Jose State
College, 19 (1967); see Randall, Mobile Home Subdivisions, APPRAISAL J., July
1967, at 361, 364. For the possible difficulties in selling the mobile home, see
note 164 infra.
144. Note, Mobile Home Park Practices:The Legal Relationship Between
Mobile Home Park Owners and Tenants Who Own Mobile Homes, 3 FIA. ST.
U.L. REv. 103, 120 (1975); Comarow, supro note 7, at 92; see Quinn, supra note
130, at 8. For an explanation of these costs, see text accompanying notes 181-91
infra.
145. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 10; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at
440; see Quinn, supra note 130, at 8.
146. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 75; see Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 816; Note, supra note 144, at 104.
147. See C. GIBsoN, supra note 74, at 27; Meyer, supra note 71, at 33-34;
CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440; Hegel, supra note 138, at 10.
148. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 6; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130,
at 440; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 10-11. Retaliatory evictions occur. LandlordTenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 814-15; Hegel, supra note 138. at 10.
"Blacklisting" also occurs. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 65. Even when the
tenant has done nothing antagonistic, the park management may evict him to
achieve various objectives, including: (1) new entrance fees, C. GIBSON, sUpra
note 74, at 27; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 73; (2) new sales at "closed"
parks, C. GIB oN, supra note 74, at 27; Hegel, supra note 138, at 10; and (3) an
improved image by the removal of older mobile homes, Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 814-15; Note, supra note 82, at 167 n.49.
149. See N. ASBURY, A FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE FEASIBILITY OF MOBILE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 90-91 (1971). Tenants rarely participate in the rule-
[Vol. 44
they think that the imposition of standards of care and conduct
contributes to more amenable living conditions.' 0 Yet the rules
become, at times, vehicles for maltreatment. Arbitrariness, unfairness, and unnecessary conformity are induced by rules that
have been unevenly enforced,'5 illegal,' 2 undisclosed, ' freely
changed, '' ambiguous,' or overly strict.'
Among the subjects that have been prohibited or regulated
by mobile home parks are children;' 7 pets;' landscaping;'
making process. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 27. The community, as well as the
park management and residents, has an interest in reasonable park rules. N.
ASBURY, supra, at 93, For extensive compilations of park rules, see generally 1
D. NULSEN & H. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 458-61; Wehrly, supra note 131, at
57-136; Frederick County, Md., Planning Comm'n, The Environmental Impact
of the Mobile Home on Frederick County 36-43 (1970) [hereinafter cited as Md.
Study].
150. See Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 815: Choosing
a Mobile Home Park, CONSUMER BULL., Mar. 1969, at 21, 23 [hereinafter cited
as CONSUMER BULL.]; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 24-25, 88.
151. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 61-64; Meyer, supra note 71, at 33,
36; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 8; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 10. But see
Weeks, Attitudes About, Mobile Home Park Living By Residents of Them, Univ.
of N.H. Inst. of Natural and Environmental Resources (1972).
152. Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 815.
153. Id.; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 9; D. Kuduk, supra note 16.
at 9.
154. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 61; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130,
at 9; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 9; see Legislation Necessity, supra note 132.
at 220.
155. Legislation Necessity, supra note 132, at 219; see D. Kuduk, supra
note 16, at 10.
156. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 61-66; Legislation Necessity, supra
note 132, at 219; see D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 9-10.
157. Starr, Guidelines for Mobile Home Park Development, APPRAISAL J.,
,Ian. 1971, at 41, 46; Study of a Proposed Mobile Home Park, APPRAISAL J., ,Jan.
1971, at 52, 55 [hereinafter cited as Proposed Park];CONSUMER REP., supra note
1(19. at 117; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 16-17; New York State Office of Planning
Servs., Facts on Mobile Homes: 9. New York Metropolitan Region Survey 17
(197Dl [hereinafter cited as N.Y. Surveyl; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 51.
Explanations for these rules are (1) limitations in park facilities, Proposed Park,
supra at 52, 55; (2) friction caused by mixing residents of different ages, D.
Moore, supra note 17, at 55, 79; Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 98: and (3)
compliance with community demands for fear of overcrowded schools,
Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 815 n.58.
158. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 63; CONSUMER REP., supra note 109,
at 11:l, 117; Connett, supra note 15, at 10; N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 17;
1). Moore, supra note 17, at 79.
159. CONSUMER BULL., supra note 150, at 23; Connett, supra note 15, at
19771
maintenance; " storage;"'' laundry;" 2 visitors;"" mobile home re7
sale;" lot location;"' noise; ' recreational and public facilities;"1
conduct of business;"' mobile home type, size, and price;"" age
of occupant and of mobile home;'" accessories;' 71 additional
structures; 71 religious preferences;"' race;' 7 ' renting or sublet-
ting;"' and other subjects.76 Park rules have included broadly
worded restrictions on tenant conduct and expression that prohibit "improper" or "objectionable" conduct or derogatory re160. Clark, supra note 75, at 74, 78; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 150, at
23; Note, supra note 144, at 115 n.63.
161. CONSUMER BuLL., supra note 150, at 23.
162. CHANGING TIMES, supra note 16, at 10; CONSUMER BULL., supra note
150, at 23.
163. CONSUMER BULL., supra note 150, at 23. Overnight guests may be
required to register and to pay a daily charge. Id.
164. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 30; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 7475; Clark, supra note 74, at 74, 78; Smith, Developing a Mobile Home I-ark:
'Key to Unlocking a Housing Giant', MORTGAGE BANKER, Nov. 1972, at 40, 51:
Waind & Wright, supra note 17, at 6. The park may reserve the right to grant
or withhold approval of sales in general as well as of a particular buyer. Clark,
supra note 75, at 74, 78. Sometimes the owner cannot transfer the right to his
lot and must tow away the mobile home or sell it to the park at a loss, C. GIBsoN,
165. Clark, supra note 75, at 74, 78-79. Management has reserved the right
to move a mobile home, at management's expense, to avoid friction among
neighbors. Id.
166. Note, supra note 144, at 115 n.63.
167. Id.
168. Note, supra note 144, at 115 n.63; see Tex. Guide, supra note 128, at
10.
169. Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 79. See generally Smith, supra note
164, at 51.
170. MOaLE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 67, 69; Smith, supra note 164. at
40, 51; CHANGING TiMES, supra note 16, at 7, 10; Wang & Travis, supra note 14:3,
at 22; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 33.
171. Smith, supra note 164, at 40, 51.
172. Connett, supra note 15, at 14.
174. Id. at 68-69. See generally Weitzman, supra note 74, at 588.
176. Parks also regulate parking, traffic, refuse disposal, group activity,
mail boxes, trespassing, and bill payment. Note, supra note 144, at 115 n.63.
[Vol. 44
marks about the park.' These rules have been used to justify
otherwise unreasonable evictions since virtually everyone can be
found guilty of a violation of the letter of such laws. 7'
Regulations also may be used as important means of earning
extra income for the park. Utilities, which owners are able to
obtain only from the park, can be purchased at wholesale and
sold to the tenants at a rate above standard retail.'7 By requiring
various services, supplies, and accessories, but limiting acquisition to specified merchants or the park itself, these regulations
often facilitate inflated prices, rebates, and kickbacks."'
3. Park Fees
Park rules have provided means for imposing fees directly
as well as for deriving income indirectly as previously discussed.
Furthermore, park owners have commonly demanded extra nonrefundable charges for privileges that either cost the park nothing
or are usually conceived to be part of the basic rent: initial entry
into the park;"' final exit from the park;"'2 planting of trees;' 3
177. See LegislationNecessity, supra note 132, at 219-20; CONSUMER REP.,
178. See CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-41; D. Kuduk, supra note
16, at 9-10. The park management is normally the final judge of rule violations.
Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 816.
179. N. ASBURY, supra note 149, at 76; MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at
73-74; Connett, supra note 15, at 21; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 52; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 8; Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 19; D. Kuduk, supra
note 16, at 4, 7-8.
180. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 73; Landlord-Tenant Relationship,
supra note 132, at 815-16; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-42; Legislation
Necessitv, supra note 132, at 220; Quinn, supra note 130, at 8; Fla. Hearings,
supra note 130, at 8; Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 79; D. Kuduk, supra note
16, at 11-12. Such restrictions have been explained as methods of traffic control.
Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 815 n.58; see, e.g., Southland
Dev. Co. v. Ehrler's Dairy, Inc., 468 S.W. 2d 284 (Ky. 1971) (rule strictly construed against the park).
181. C. GIBSoN, supra note 74, at 20-21; MoBIIL HOMES,supra note 16, at
72; PIM 1971, supra note 56, at 91-92; SNEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 43-44;
CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-41; Hegel, supra note 138, at 9; Waind
& Wright, supra note 17, at 4; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 12. Entrance fees as
high as $2,500 have been known. C. GiBSON, supra note 74, at 20-21; Legislation
Necessity, supra note 132, at 218 n.25; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 6. The
noncompetitive price paid for a mobile home from a dealer attached to a
"closed" park has been justified as a substitute for an entrance fee. C. GIBSON,
19771
entertainment of overnight guests;" ' keeping of pets;" ' occupation beyond a specified number;' 4 occupation by children;"-,
owner's use of his own washing and drying machines;"" installation of tiedowns to protect against wind damage; ' original
"setup" of the unit;'" and sales commissions upon resale. 9 ' For
example, an owner who sells his own unit on its site without the
assistance of the park may be charged a substantial sales commission even though the new owner will also be charged an entrance fee.
supra note 74, at 20-21. The possibility of deriving more profit by charging new
residents with entrance fees provides an incentive for parks to evict old tenants
or to exert pressure on them to leave. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 27; CONSUMER
RE., supra note 130, at 440-41; see Stewart v. Green, 300 So. 2d 889, 892 (Fla.
1974). These fees have been charged even when used mobile homes were purchased already on the site. Meyer, supra note 71, at 33.
182. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 74; D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 13;
PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 22; Note, supra note 131, at 106; CONSUMER REP.,
supra note 130, at 440-41; Waind & Wright, supra note 17, at 5; Fla. Hearings,
supra note 130, at 6. Exit fees are either flat charges or, when the mobile home
has been resold, a percentage (10-25%) of the resale price, often whether or not
the park has participated in the resale. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 74:
Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 816; Legislation Necessity,
supra note 132, at 220. For an explanation of this resale fee, see LandlordTenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 816.
183. MOBILE HomES, supra note 16, at 73; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130,
at 440-41.
184. Meyer, supra note 71, at 33, 36; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130. at
440-41; Landlord-TenantRelationship, supra note 132, at 219-20 Fla. Hearings,
185. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 9; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 63;
CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-41; Connett, supra note 15, at 12; Fla.
Hearings, supra note 130, at 6-7.
186. Connett, supra note 15, at 12; Wang & Travis, supra note 143. at 27
n. 13.
187. C. GIBsON, supra note 74, at 9; Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 98;
Meyer, supra note 71, at 33, 36; Connett, supra note 15, at 12; Fla. Hearings,
supro note 130, at 6.
188. Meyer, supra note 71, at 8.
189. See Fla. Hearings, supra note 130, at 6.
190.
191.
See id.
Note, supra note 131, at 101, 106; Fla. Hearings, supra note 130,
4.
[Vol. 44
Quality of Park and Management
For all of the expense and trouble that owners have encountered in their dealings with parks, one would hope that their
living accommodations would be of a high caliber. Indeed, many
of them are, especially in the newer parks. The overall quality of
the parks, nonetheless, has been called into question.'
Some
parks, particularly the older ones, have inadequate or hazardous
utility service," ' overcrowded conditions, 4 and other dangers to
health and safety."' The worst of them are slums.'" Woodall's
Mobile Home and Park Directory includes annual ratings of
parks throughout the country. The minimum rating, one star,
requires, among other things, all-weather patios, maintained
homes, minimum clutter, adequate and passable streets, buildings of fair condition, and evidence of fair management. 7 Nearly
one-half of the nation's parks fail to qualify for even one star.9 9
The most important determinant of the quality of life within
the park is the competence and character of the management; yet
some managers have been accused of falling below reasonable
expectations." In the last analysis, good management can compensate for many weaknesses in the physical and regulatory as2 ''
pects of park living. '
192. See generally MOHILE HoMrs, supra note 16, at 52-86.
193. Id. at 56, 58, 30,
194. Id. at 58.
195. Id. at 58, 79-80.
196. See notes 428-30 infra.
197. WOODALL'S 1975 MoBiLE HOME & PARK DIRECTORY 5-6 (1975).
198. Id. at 5.
199, See N. AssuRy, supra note 149, at 98; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 103;
Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 100; Smith, supra note 127, at 40, 60; Watkins,
The Best Way to Finance a Mobile Home, MECHANIX ILLUSTRATED, June 1974,
at 60, 119; D, Moore, supra note 17, at 58, 150, 178-79. For examples of questionable management attitudes, see C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 21; MOBILE HoMFs,
supra note 16, at 75; Wellington, Trailer Camp Slums, SURVEY, Oct. 1951, at
418-20; J. Meyers, Social Solidarity in a Mobile Home Park: The Effects of
Discrimination 6 (1971) (unpublished thesis in Cornell University Library); D.
Moore, supra note 17, at 93-105, 127-30, 150-56.
200. See Salinas, A Study of Mobile Homes and Management, J. PROP.
MANAGEMENT, July/Aug, 1964. at 290, 294.
19771
C.
Owner-Government Relationship
Until quite recently government has done little to alleviate
the difficulties encountered by mobile home owners. On the contrary, through the use of questionable taxation and housing regulations or the misapplication of proper regulations, it has even
caused some of the troubles. Government intervention in this
area often depends upon whether the mobile home owner has title
to or is merely renting the lot upon which the home is located.
For purposes of discussion in this section, both situations will be
considered together whenever possible.
1. Housing Regulations
Zoning practices and building codes are among the greatest
hindrances to an expanded use of mobile homes?' General regulations as well as specific mobile home ordinances, such as license
or permit requirements, have created obstacles for the owners. "
There are numerous examples of such general regulations.
Typically there are ordinances regulating the floor space of dwellings by prescribing either a minimum space per occupant or an
absolute minimum space irrespective of the number of occupants;' "' mobile homes normally satisfy the former type of ordi201. In 1969 dealers reported that the two greatest adverse factors facing
their businesses were the closely related problems of park space (59%) and local
zoning (55%). See notes 316-27 infra and accompanying text. By 1974 local
zoning had dropped to second (43%) and park space had dropped to fourth
(21%. Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 30. These are troublesome for
dealers primarily because of the impact they have on potential customers. See
generally B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 189-281; Validity and
Application of Zoning Regulations Relating to Mobile Home or Trailer Parks,
Annot., 42 A.L.R.3d 598 (1972) [hereinafter cited as Application of Zoning
Regulations]; Levine, supra note 9, at 2.
202. See generally 2 R. ANDERSON, AMERIcAN LAW OF ZONING § 14.04 to .12
(2d ed. 1976); B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, ch. 4; SHEPARD'S, supra
note 48, at chs. IX-XI.
203. B. HonEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 111; Comment, Regulation
and Taxation of House Trailers, 22 U. Cm. L. REv. 738, 741-42 (1955); R. Boyd,
Regulations of Mobile Home, Mobile Home Parks and Mobile Home Subdivisions 91 (1965) (unpublished thesis in University of Oklahoma Library). Sometimes these restrictions are a part of the building code rather than the zoning
ordinance. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 168 Pa. Super. Ct. 442, 78
A.2d 880 (1951); Comment, supra at 742 n.19.
[Vol. 44
nance1' but have been excluded by the latter."" Minimum lot size
requirements similarly have operated to exclude mobile homes."'
Zoning by means of separate housing districts historically has
redounded to the disadvantage of mobile home owners. "Single
family dwelling," or other comparable terms, have regularly been
interpreted in such a way as to exclude mobile homes from residential zones"' and to relegate them to rural areas, undesirable
urban locations, or mobile home parks. For this reason, mobile
home parks have generally been found in the countryside or the
areas zoned for commercial or industrial use.2"' Finally, building,
health, and safety codes have operated to frustrate the attempts
of owners to locate where they desire.2"" Evaluating mobile homes
by the terms of standard codes has inevitably resulted in their
204. This is true if the minimum prescribed by the ordinance is typical
and the number of occupants in the mobile home is not large. B. HODES & G.
ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 111; Comment, supra note 203, at 742; R. Boyd,
205. C. GIBSON, supra note 74 at 37; B. HODES & G. ROBnSON, supra note
5, at 111; Comment, supra note 203, at 742; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 91-92.
Related are the ordinances that limit the total number of persons occupying the
premises, which are usually satisfied by mobile homes, and the ordinances that
prescribe a minimum room width, which historically have been difficult for
mobile homes to satisfy. R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 91-92.
206. See, e.g., County of Will v. Stanfill, 7 ill. App. 2d 52, 129 N.E.2d 46
(1955); County Council to Form Citizens Panel to Study Zoning Law on Mobile
Homes, Chattanooga Times, Apr. 22, 1976, at 37, col. 6 (minimum mobile home
lot of 10,000 square feet).
207.
See Note, supra note 144, at 108-09. See generally 2 R. ANDERSON,
supra note 202, at § 14.04 to .05; Application of Zoning Regulations, supra note
201, at 611-15.
208. Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 39-40; Bair, Mobile Homes:
Many Questions, Some Answers, NATION'S CITIEs, Aug. 1965, at 18; Mays,
Zoning for Mobile Homes: A Legal Analysis, J. AM. INST. PLANNERS, Aug. 1961,
at 204, 208; Comment, Mobile Homes in North Carolina:Residence or Vehicle?,
50 N.C.L. REv. 612, 624 (1972); Note, Regulation of Mobile Homes, 13 SYRACUSE
L. REv. 125, 129-30 (1961); Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 20.
209. By falling within the terms of a building, health, or safety code,
mobile homes have been excluded from the community. See, e.g., Lower Merion
Township v. Gallup, 158 Pa. Super. Ct. 572, 46 A.2d 35 (1946) (building code).
Some mobile homes have been built according to the standards of houses. HousE
& HOME, supra note 45, at 60. See generally C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 5; B.
HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 104-12; MOBILE HOMES, supro note 16,
at 57; Eshelman, Municipal Regulation of House Trailers in Pennsylvania, 66
DICK. L. REV. 301, 303-06, 313-15 (1962); Comment, supra note 203, at 742-43.
19771
being declared deficient. Too little thought has been given to
whether many of these ordinances, designed for housing based on
quite different technology, could be applied rationally to mobile
homes.
Restrictive zoning ordinances have been designed specifically to discourage the spread of mobile homes and parks and to
continue the traditional isolation of mobile homes from the rest
of society. For example, communities have excluded mobile
homes entirely, 1 " have imposed time limitations on their stay, 1
or have restricted them to established parks. 2
Controversy persists among the authorities as to the proper
location for mobile homes. Some assert that they should be allowed on nonrural, private lots,"' 3 while others propose that they
be restricted to parks.2 " No one contends, however, that individ210. These exclusionary ordinances have been upheld. See, e.g., Davis v.
McPherson, 132 N.E.2d 626 (Ohio App. 1955); City of Raleigh v. Morand, 247
N.C. 363, 100 S.E.2d 870 (1957). Courts, however, generally have taken a dim
view of totally exclusionary ordinances. See, e.g., Gust v. Township of Canton,
342 Mich. 436, 70 N.W.2d 772 (1955); Commonwealth v. Amos, 44 Pa. D. & C.
125 (1941). See generally 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, § 14.04; E. BARTLEY &
F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 79-80; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 11626, 219; Carter, Problems in the Regulation and Taxation of Mobile Homes, 48
IOWA L. REv. 16, 24 (1962); Flippen, supra note 2, at 15; Moore, The Mobile
Home and the Law, 6 AKRON L. REv. 1, 9-11 (1973); Note, Trailer Parks vs. The
Municipal Police Power, 35 CONN. B.J. 285, 288-89 (1960); Note, supra note 208,
at 132-33; Application of Zoning Regulatinm, supra note 201, at 604-11.
211. Usually time limitation ordinances are upheld. See, e.g., Karen v.
Town of East Haddam, 146 Conn. 720, 155 A.2d 921 (1959); Cady v. City of
Detroit, 289 Mich. 499, 286 N.W. 805 (1939), appeal dismissed, 309 U.S. 620
(1940); Starry v. City of Brooklyn, 162 Ohio St. 120, 121 N.E.2d 11 (1954),
appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 923 (1955). See generally 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note
202, at § 14.11; B. HonEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 96-104; Eshelman,
supra note 209, at 314; Mays, supra note 208, at 204, 210-11; Moore, supra note
210, at 16-17; Note, supra note 210, at 289-91; Note, supra note 208, at 13., 136;
Application of Zoning Regulations, supra note 201, at 620-22; R. Boyd, supra
note 203, at 120.
212. Generally these restrictions have been upheld. See, e.g., Davis v. City
of Mobile, 245 Ala. 80, 16 So. 2d 1 (1943); Town of Granby v. Landry, 341 Mass.
443, 170 N.E.2d 364 (1960); People v. Clute, 47 Misc. 2d 1005, 263 N.Y.S.2d 826
(Wash. County Ct. 1965). See generally 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at §
14.08; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 72-82, 127; Carter, supra note
210, at 33-34; Moore, supra note 210, at 11-13; Comment, supra note 208, at 61516, 623-24; Note, supra note 208, at 128-29.
213. See C. GIBsoN, supra note 74, at 35; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 54.
214. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 12-13, 99, 106; Woods &
[Vol. 44
ual mobile homes or parks must be limited to commercial and
industrial zones because, it is argued, the rental of a space for a
mobile home is no more a business than is the rental of an apartment unit or a house. 1
Since it is realistic to conceive of a park as a horizontal
apartment house, 21 parks ought to be treated similarly to other
rental housing and thus allowed in residential zones. Such treatment would partially counter the contention that, because of the
presence of various commercial operations within the parks, such
as dealerships, lot rentals to travel trailers, laundromats, or convenience grocery markets, these parks should be excluded from
residential areas. Perhaps the better view is that certain minor,
controlled business activities ought to be permissible in mobile
home parks as they often are in apartment complexes. 7
There are numerous reasonable nonrural locations for mobile
homes: multiple-family residential districts;1 single-family resiMorris, supra note 104, at 42; Moore, supra note 210, at 13; Newcomb, supra
note 8, at 34; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 29, 81; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 7;
see F. BAIR, LocAL REGULATION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS, TRAVEL TRAILER PARKS
AND RELATED FACIUTIES 14 (1965); C. GmSON, supra note 74, at 35. Virtually no
one suggests that mobile homes be excluded from private lots in rural areas. See
E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 99-100; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 34;
R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 163; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 7.
215. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 77; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 226, 228; Bartke & Gage, Mobile Homes: Zoning and
Taxation, 55 CORNELL L. REV. 491, 498-99 (1970); Comment, supra note 203, at
744. But see B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 220; Note, supra note
210, at 292.
216. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 13-14, 34-35; Martini, Mobile
Homes, Immobile Landscape, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, Fall 1960, at 15; Comment, supra note 208, at 625; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 53; see Comment,
Mobile Homes in Kansas: A Need for Proper Zoning, 20 KAN. L. REV. 87, 97
(1971) [hereinafter cited as Proper Zoning]. But see Bair, Mobile Homes-A
New Challenge, 32 L. & CONTEMP. PROD. 286, 291 (1967).
217. F. BAIR, supra note 214, at 32-33; E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note
15, at 76; Bair, supra note 216, at 297; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 96;
Southern Tier East Regional Plan, Broome-Tioga Counties, New York, The
Mobile Home Park: An Analysis of its Adequacy As a Living Environment 98
(1973) [hereinafter cited as N.Y. Plan]; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 159; D.
Moore, supra note 17, at 39-40. But see B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5,
at 227-28. Prohibition from a residential zone of a dealership attached to a park
is, however, reasonable. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 76, 78; Wehrly,
218. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 40, 42, 79, 81; B. HODES &
19771
dential districts;2 ' light commercial zones;"' buffer zones be2
22
"
tween residential and commercial areas; ' the urban fringe; 2
and special park districts." Yet communities have not accepted
this view. By forcing mobile homes and parks into districts not
planned for residential use, the community instead contributes to
the deterioration of the homes by eliminating much of the incentive to maintain high standards. 24 Examples of this degeneration
are in turn often used to justify relegating the homes to nonresidential areas.
2.
Taxation
The methods by which state and local governments tax mobile homes have been characterized as "bewildering"'"2 and as a
"jungle of inconsistencies." 22 ' Even a classification of these methG. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 227; Bair, supra note 216, at 296; Bair, supra note
208, at 18, 21; Mays, supra note 208, at 204, 208; Note, supra note 210, at 29293; Comment, supra note 216, at 97; Connett, supra note 15, at 2-3; Northern
Natural Gas Co., Mobile Homes and the Mobile Home Park: An Aspect of
Housing Supply 9 (1973) [hereinafter cited as Housing Supply]; R. Boyd, supra
note 203, at 50, 143.
219. Such an area is reasonable only if the mobile home density so qualifies. Bair, supra note 216, at 296; see E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at
40, 79.
220. Connett, supra note 15, at 2-3; see R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 143.
221. E. BARTLEY & F. BArn, supra note 15, at 40; Woods & Morris, supra
note 104, at 40; see Starr, supra note 157, at 41, 44.
222. E. BARTLEY & F. BArn, supra note 15, at 42.
223. B. HODEs & G. ROBERsoN, supra note 5, at 259; Moore, supra note 210,
at 21-22; 61 MICH. L. Rnv. 1010, 1014 (1963); R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 28, 51,
59, 79. Contra F. BAIR, supra note 214, at 23; E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note
15, at 105-06, 121. But see R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 78. For a discussion of
the process by which a park should be permitted into a particular zone, see
generally E. BARTLEY & F. BArn, supra note 15, at 81, 94-98; R. Boyd, supra note
203, at 59-60.
224. R. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 78-79; B. HODES & G. ROERsupra note 5, at 226; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 19, 22; Morris & Woods,
supra note 105, at 63; Bair, supra note 216, at 296; Note, supra note 210, at 292SON,
93; Comment, supra note 216, at 96-97; Mich. Task Force, supra note 51, at 42;
R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 12-13; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 2.
225. See Bair, supra note 216, at 291; Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at
521-22.
226. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 111; see M. DRuRY, supra note
16, at 123.
IVol. 44
ods is troublesomeY Some states provide alternative types of
taxation"' while others provide combinations.2 The form of taxation is sometimes determined by whether the mobile home is
placed on a lot that is owned or rented 3" or by the degree of
attachment of the mobile home to the ground.23 ' Even though a
description of taxing methods is soon outdated since the area is
in a rapid state of flux,232 the more common types of taxation will
be briefly described.
Personal property taxes are regularly levied on mobile
homes. 33' Objections to this device include inefficiency;3 4 inequality;2 3 disproportionately high or inaccurate assessments; 3 1 loopholes;237 nonenforcement;23 high exemptions; 9 inaccurate depreciation rates;1 " lack of forced sale redemption periods;' lack
227.
Comment, The Search for an Equitable Approach to Mobile Home
Taxation, 21 Dx PAUL L. REv. 1008, 1010 (1972). See generally B. HODES & G.
ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 170-74.
228. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 39; Comment, supra note 227, at 1012;
Note, Toward an Equitable and Workable Program of Mobile Home Taxation,
71 YALE L.J. 702, 707 (1962).
229. Comment. supra note 227, at 1010; see Note, supra note 82, at 161.
230. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 111; see Comment, supra note
227, at 1012.
231. Bair, supra note 216, at 291-92.
232. Comment, supra note 227, at 1010-11, For general discussions of mobile home taxation, see B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 155-88;
SIEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 81-131: Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 521-22:
Carter, supra note 210, at 46-57; Comment note 227 supra; Note,
Housing-Mobile Homes-Some Legal Questions, 75 W. VA. L. Rv. 382, 41821 (1973) thereinafter cited as Legal Questions]; Note note 228 supra; Comment, supra note 203, at 745-51; Mich. Task Force, supra note 51, at 16-29.
233. See generally Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 420 (and authorities
cited therein).
234. Comment, supra note 227, at 1010; Comment, supra note 203, at 747.
But see B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 155.
235. B. Hons & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 168; Bair, .supranote 216,
at 292.
236. Bair, supra note 216, at 292; Comment, supra note 227, at 1029-30.
But see B. HoDEs & (. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 155-56; Carter, supra note
210, at 50-51.
237. See Comment., supra note 203, at 747.
238. B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 155-56; Comment, supra
note 227, at 1028; Note, supra note 228, at 707.
239. Comment, upra note 227, at 1028.
240. Id. at 1030.
241. Note, supra note 228, at 708.
19771
of normal housing exemptions; 2 and collection difficulties.2"
Taxation of mobile homes as real property is common.2 " It
has been argued, however, that this form of taxation is faulty for
the following reasons: the tax assessment of a park can include
the value of the mobile homes therein, thus one party is taxed for
the realty of another;24 ' mobile homes are manifestly not realty;"'
inequality occurs during conversion from another taxation
method;4 7 mobile homes are subject to forced sale if the park fails
to pay taxes;"' and the park has difficulty in passing the tax
24
9
burden to the owners.
Vehicle license fees for mobile homes are required in some
states. 10 Weaknesses of this method are alleged to be horizontal
inequity, that is, taxing dissimilarly people in like situations;'
242. Id.
243. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 114-15. But see Carter, supra
note 210, at 50-51.
244. Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 420 (and authorities cited
therein). See generally Taxation, as Real Estate, of Trailers or Mobile Homes,
Annot., 86 A.L.R.2d 277 (1962) [hereinafter cited as Taxation]. For arguments
in favor of this method, see Note, supra note 82, at 170-71. Such statutes have
been upheld by the courts. See, e.g., New York Mobile Homes Ass'n v. Steckel,
9 N.Y.2d 533, 175 N.E.2d 151, 215 N.Y.S.2d 487 (1961), appeal dismissed, 369
U.S. 150 (1962); Lantz Appeal, 199 Pa. Super. Ct. 310, 184 A.2d 127 (1962).
245. Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 522-25; Carter, supra note 210, at
53-54; Comment, supra note 227, at 1013, 1019; Note, supra note 208, at 134;
see New York Mobile Homes Ass'n v. Steckel, 9 N.Y.2d 533, 175 N.E.2d 151,
215 N.Y.S.2d 487 (1961), appeal dismissed, 369 U.S. 150 (1962); Barnes v. Gorham, 12 Misc. 2d 285, 175 N.Y.S.2d 376 (Sup. Ct. 1957).
246. Comment, supra note 227, at 1010, 1017-18; Note, supra note 208, at
134. But see B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 160.
247. Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 522; Rooney, Micro-Analysis of
Mobile Home Characteristicswith Implications for Tax Policy: A Reply, 44
LAND ECON. 414, 416 (1968). But see Berney & Larson, Micro-Analysis of Mobile
Home Characteristicswith Implications of Tax Policy: Rejoinder, 44 LAND
ECON. 417, 417-18 (1968).
248. Carter, supra note 210, at 53 n.201.
249. Carter, supra note 210, at 54; Comment, supra note 227, at 1020-21.
The difficulty of the park's passing the tax burden on to the owners arises only,
of course, if the tax is imposed on the park rather than directly on the owner,
250. Carter, supra note 210, at 46-50; Note, supra note 210, at 293-94;
Comment, supra note 227, at 1030; Note, supra note 208, at 135-37; Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 420-21 (and authorities cited therein).
251. Comment, supra note 227, at 1010; Note, supra note 82, at 170; California Senate Fact Finding Comm. on Revenue and Taxation, An Evaluation
[Vol. 44
inappropriate disbursement of proceeds among governmental
units;22 inability to assess improvements;2" :' inaccurate depreciation rates;"" and inaccurate valuations." '
Fees have also been imposed under the name of occupancy,
parking, license, excise, or permit fees."6 Arguable deficiencies
include inaccurate valuations, 2 ' horizontal inequity,' and fees
unrelated to services received. 9
Other forms of mobile home taxaton or fees include sales
taxes," " use taxes,"' inventory taxes,2 2 and, for those renting lots,
business and other taxes imposed upon the landlord. 3 Several
states have no specific statutes for mobile home taxes or fees but
extract their due from the owners under a "tax anything" statute." 4 Horizontal inequity is the primary criticism of these varof the Taxation of Mobilehomes in California 10 (1965) [hereinafter cited as
Cal. Evaluation].
252. Bair, supra note 216, at 292; Carter, supra note 210, at 47; Note,
supra note 82, at 170-71; Note, supra note 228, at 706-07.
253. Note, supra note 82, at 171; Note, supra note 228, at 707.
254. Cal. Evaluation, supra note 251, at 10.
255. Note, supra note 228, at 706.
256. 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at § 14.12; Carter, supra note 210, at
55-57; Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 421 (and authorities cited therein);
Note, supra note 228, at 708-10. These fees are revenue measures typically
collected on a monthly basis. Carter, supra note 210, at 55.
257. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 117; Hegel, supra note 138,
at 72; see County Comm'rs v. English, 182 Md. 514, 35 A.2d 135 (1943).
258. Note, supra note 228, at 709-10; E. BARTLEY & F. BArR, supra note 15.
at 117; see Wright v. Steers, 242 Ind. 582, 179 N.E.2d 721 (1962); Kelley v. City
of San Diego, 63 Cal. App. 2d 638, 147 P.2d 127 (1944).
259. Carter, supra note 210, at 57.
260. C. GIBsoN, supra note 74, at 39; Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at
41; Note, supra note 82, at 161-62; Chattanooga, Tennessee, Area Regional
Council of Governments, Mobile Home Study 31 (1971) [hereinafter cited as
Chattanooga Studyl; see, e.g.,
CAL. REV.
&
TAX.
CODE
§ 6051 (West Supp.
1977).
261. Note, supra note 82, at 161-62; see, e.g., CAL, REV. & TAX. CODE §
6201 (West Supp. 1977).
262. Although only dealers are subject to this tax, obviously it will be
passed on to the purchasers. Chattanooga Study, supra note 260, at 31.
263. C. GIBSoN, supra note 74, at 39. These taxes also will be passed on to
the tenants.
264. Note, Municipal Regulation and Taxation of Trailers and Trailer
Camps Under Pennsylvania Lau, 57 DICK. L. REv. 338, 342 (1953); Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 421 (and authorities cited therein).
19771
ious modes of taxation. 26 5
A cursory examination of some of the complaints about the
forms of mobile home taxation reveals that they have little substance or significance. One example is the objection that mobile
homes should not be taxed as real property because they do not
fall within the traditional definition of real property.2 6 Other tax
deficiencies actually work to the advantage of mobile home owners, such as the fact that personal property taxes are rarely effectively collected." 7
While it is generally believed that mobile homes are insufficiently taxed,2M the basic question ultimately is whether or not
mobile homes are taxed "fairly." The commentators have no uniform theory of "fair" taxation. 69 The theory most commonly
employed is that tax fairness should mean horizontal equity, that
is, that people in like situations should be taxed similarly."9
Thus, the mobile home owner should pay taxes at the same rate
as others do for shelter"' regardless of 3ifferences in the form of
taxation.272 Another theory is that tax fairness should be judged
265. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 39-41; Note, supra note 82, at 261-62;
see Chattanooga Study, supra note 260, at 31.
266. See note 202 supra; Comment, supra note 227, at 1017.
267. See note 194 supra; Note, supra note 228, at 707.
268. See notes 343-46 infra and accompanying text.
269. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 107; Carter, supra note 210,
at 46; see Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62. For an interesting debate on the proper
analysis and application of policy for mobile home taxation, see Berney & Larson note 247 supra; Berney & Larson, Micro-Analysis of Mobile Home Characteristics with Implications for Tax Policy, 42 LAND EcON. 453 (1966), and Rooney
note 247 supra.
270. Cal. Senate Comm. on Revenue and Taxation, Interim Hearing,Dec.
4, 1972, at 115-16 [hereinafter cited as Cal. Hearing]; Bartke & Gage note 215
supra; Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at 458; Galligan, Taxation & Zoning
of Mobile Homes in New York, New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal
Officials Report No. 72-4, at 22-23 (1972).
271. Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 520; Berney & Larson, supra note
269, at 459; Cal. Evaluation, supra note 251, at 8; see C. GIBsoN, supra note 74,
at 39-40.
272. Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at 459; see Ohio Dep't of Taxation,
Taxation of House Trailers in Ohio and Other States 11-12 (1958) [hereinafter
cited as Ohio Tax Reportl. It has been argued that it is impossible, as a practical matter, to arrive at horizontal equity when different taxing methods are
applied. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 8, 12; Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at
459. For a curious and questionable chain of reasoning attacking this proposi-
[Vol. 44
by the benefits-received test, that is, that people should pay for
the cost of the governmental services they receive. 7 Although
this latter test is certainly a consideration, it is readily apparent
that it does not predominate in our taxation system; otherwise,
those who have unusual demands for governmental services, as
for example, parents with many school-aged children, would pay
more than those with similar incomes who are without such demands."' Yet the benefits-received test has often been utilized to
measure whether or not mobile home owners pay their fair share
of taxes."' 8 Other tests of fairness have rarely been mentioned in
the literature examining this question.
Whatever test of fairness is applied, the surveyors, commentators, and judges disagree on the conclusion to be reached. 76
Some have contended that owners pay less than their fair share, 77
others that they do pay their fair share,7 and still others that
tion, see Comment, supra note 227, at 1022-27. When there is horizontal equity
between mobile home owners and the owners of other forms of housing, it will
appear that the mobile home owner is paying inequitably low taxes. This results
from the fact that mobile homes are less expensive than other forms of comparable housing and that mobile homes depreciate at a faster rate. Cat. Hearing,
supra note 270, at 106; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 61-62; Chattanooga Study,
supra note 260, at 26. Perhaps these facts call into question the basic concept
of horizontal equity.
273. Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 63-64; Comment, supra note 227,
at 1023-24; Galligan, supra note 270, at 23; Ohio Tax Report, supra note 272, at
11-12; see Manhattan Trailer Court v. Township of North Bergen, 104 N.J.
Super. 405, 250 A.2d 156 (1969). For discussions of the view that this is not the
definitive test of tax fairness, see Cal. Hearing, supra note 270, at 115; C.
GIBsON, stpra note 74, at 39; Comment, supra note 227, at 1024 (considered the
test nonetheless); Galligan, supra note 270, at 22-23; Cal. Evaluation, supra note
251, at 8; and Chattanooga Study, supra note 260, at 26.
274. See C. GtBsoN, supra note 74, at 39; Bartke & Gage, supra note 215,
at 521; Comment, supra note 227, at 1024.
275. See Manhattan Trailer Court v. Township of North Bergen, 104 N.J.
Super. Ct. 405, 250 A.2d 156 (1969); E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at
10, 109; M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 124; Bair, supra note 208, at 18-20; Matthews, supra note 63, at 72; Wood, supra note 65, at 42, 48; Proposed Park, supra
note 157, at 52, 55-56; Note, supra note 144, at 105 n.15; HOUSE & HOME, supra
note 92, at 136, 142; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 66; D. Cowgill, supra
note 4, at 82-84.
276. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 114, 127; see Matthews, supra note 63,
at 64, 72.
278. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 110; B. HoDEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 99; see M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 126.
19771
they pay more than their fair share. 2" ' With unfortunate regularity the authors fail to state the fairness test employed.2w° Yet even
if the horizontal equity test be the criterion, there are other hindrances to a reasonable, generalized evaluation of tax fairness.
These impediments include such determinative factors as the
efficiency of the tax collection," ' the form of the taxation,8 2 the
accuracy of the valuation,8 3 and the location of the mobile home
on a lot rented or owned by the mobile home dweller."" Therefore,
the final conclusion must be that the tax treatment of mobile
homes, a subject fraught with controversy, offers no evidence in
favor of the thesis of this article that mobile home owners are
treated inequitably by the government, or perhaps it offers some
evidence to the contrary.
D.
Park-Government Relationship
Many of the problems discussed in regard to the ownergovernment relationship apply to the relationship of mobile home
parks and the government. The park, being a buffer between the
government and perhaps the majority of owners, often must endure the brunt of the strict regulations aimed at mobile homes.8 5
279. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 10; APPALACHIA, supra
note 97, at 1, 4; Mobile Homes: Use and Abuse, Christian Sci. Monitor, Apr.
22, 1972, § E, at 16, col. I [hereinafter cited as Use and Abuse!; Trailer
Dwellers (Letter to the Editor), Christian Sci. Monitor, Sept. 16, 1969, § E, at
16, col. 6.
280. See, e.g., M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 126; APPALACHIA, supra note
97, at 1, 4.
281. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 126; see E. BARTLEY &F. BAIR, supra note
15, at 111-12; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62; Ohio Tax Report, supra note 272,
at 1. It has been alleged that the expense of administering the tax on mobile
homes exceeds the revenue the tax produces. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 125.
282. See M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 126. See, more specifically, the
previously mentioned objections to individual forms of taxation at notes 234-43,
245-49, 251-55, 257-59 supra and accompanying text. The particular objection,
however, often does not affect the question of horizontal equity. For example, a
determination of whether or not the taxes are returned to appropriate governmental units is irrelevant to the analysis of whether or not the owner pays at
an equitable rate. See, e.g., C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 40.
283. See Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62; Ohio Tax Report, supra note 272,
at 1.
284. See Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62-64.
285. Once the park has overcome the initial difficulties, it is often able to
use this leverage against the owner, as was seen in the discussion in the section
[Vol. 44
Many commentators think that parks create special problems of
their own,2"" and while most of these difficulties occur at the time
of the creation of parks, they may reappear if expansion of the
park is planned.m7
III. THE
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING MOBILE HOMES
That mobile home technology should encounter resistance is
not surprising. That it should encounter as many difficulties as
were seen in the previous section is surprising, especially in light
of the great demand for new housing and, in particular, low-cost
housing. This section will examine the major causes of the problems: realty-personalty confusion; supply and demand pressures;
and the perceived undesirability of mobile homes and their
owners.
A.
The forerunners of the modern mobile home were the same
as the forerunners of the modern travel trailer, small units easily
towed by the average automobile. 8 Today a mobile home is still
normally towed to its site on its own wheels, 2"' but it is so large
that it must be moved by a licensed transporter. As a reflection
of this evolution, the mobile home has a double nature. Having
the characteristics of a vehicle (personalty) and of a house
(realty), the mobile home has suffered from considerable legal
confusion.""
"Owner-Park Relationship," See text accompanying notes 129-200 supra. A
prime example is the market advantage resulting from a regulation that mobile
homes be confined to parks.
286. See note 438 infra and accompanying text.
287. Van Iden, Zoning Restrictions Applied to Mobile Homes, 20 CLEV. ST.
L. REv. 196 (1971); see Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 63; N.Y. Survey,
supra note 157, at 15-16, 21-23.
288. B. HonEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 1, 8-9. Although the mobile
home became fully distinguishable from the travel trailer over 20 years ago,
regulatory bodies and courts have been slow to recognize the differences. See
Bair, supra note 216, at 288, 298.
289. Some mobile homes are without wheels and are transported by flat
bed trucks.
290. See generally 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at § 14.03; E. BARTLEY
& F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 56; Carter, supra note 210, at 17-19; Frey & Knop,
supra note 19, at 465-66; Note, The House Trailer: Real or Personal Property?,
6 N.Y.U. INTRA. L. REV. 83 (1951).
19771
The characterization of mobile homes as either realty or personalty may determine whether or not the mobile home satisfies
various requirements or warrants certain benefits."' For example,
depending upon statutory construction, the choice between characterizing the mobile home as realty or personalty may affect the
application of building codes;292 zoning ordinances;"ea health and
safety codes; 24 tax codes; 9 5 homestead rights;2 6 security interests;297 landlord-tenant regulations; 98 residency requirements;29 9
291. See, e.g., Napierkowski v. Gloucester Township, 29 N.J. 481, 150
A.2d 481 (1959).
292. When building codes are considered applicable, mobile homes rarely
will satisfy them. See note 205 supra. Generally, however, building codes have
been considered inapplicable. Carter, supra note 210, at 29. This facilitates mass
production and marketing. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 57; PLI 1973, supra
note 16, at 45.
293. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Flannery, 1 Pa. D. & C.2d 680 (1954);
City of Sioux Falls v. Cleveland, 75 S.D. 548, 70 N.W.2d 62 (1955). At times,
the owner argues that the mobile home falls within the terms of the zoning
ordinance and that it conforms to the ordinance requirements, and, at other
times the government contends that the mobile home falls within the terms of
the zoning ordinance but that it fails to conform to the requirements. See Bartke
& Gage, supra note 215, at 500-01 (and authorities cited therein). See generally
note 533 infra and accompanying text; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5,
at 67-69.
294. See, e.g., Boxer v. Harrison, 175 Misc, 249, 22 N.Y.S.2d 501 (1940).
295. Taxation can be affected several ways by this characterization. First,
the type of tax imposed is determined; see notes 225-48 supra and accompanying
text; and this in turn can determine who (either the owner or the park) can
deduct the state and local taxes from the federal taxes. I.R.C. § 164(a) (1977).
Special exemptions also are related, including old age abatements, and widows',
orphans', and veterans' exemptions. See generally PLI 1973, supra note 16, at
31; Note, supra note 228, at 708, 711.
296. See, e.g., Clark v. Vitz, 190 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. Ct. App. 1945); In re
Foley, 97 F. Supp. 843 (Neb. 1951). See generally E. BARTLEY & F. BArn, supra
note 15, at 9, 115-16; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 104, 349-53;
SHEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 309-12; Castleberry, Mobile Home Financing,5 ST.
MARY'S L.J. 259, 269-72 (1973); Note, supra note 290, at 83-85, 88-89; Legal
Questions, supra note 232, at 414-16.
297. See generally Castleberry note 296 supra; Comment, Mobile Home
FinancingUnder the Uniform Commercial Code, 36 MONT. L. REv. 213 (1975);
Note, supra note 82, at 171-72; Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 408-14.
299. See, e.g., Schreiner v. Allen, 13 App. Div. 2d 871, 216 N.Y.S.2d 57
(1961); Vrooman v. Vrooman, 183 Misc. 233, 50 N.Y.S.2d 694 (1944).
[Vol. 44
statutes of frauds;"' statutes of descent and distribution;' transportation controls;" 2 statutes of limitations;" 3 the Uniform Commercial Code; 01 criminal statutes; '5 and other rights and regulations. The confusion has often prevented mobile home owners
from enjoying the advantages given to those in comparable positions, such as by denying the mobile home owner rights given to
the owner of conventional housing.'" Determining the nature of
a mobile home has also affected the interpretation of restrictive
covenants, " ' wills, 3" land sales contracts,1 0 and insurance con300. See generally Note, supra note 290, at 89-90.
301. See generally id.at 87.
302. As realty, mobile homes would not be subject to many transportation
controls. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 130-32. Industry representatives may
prefer the vehicle classification for ease of transportation. Cal. Hearing, supra
note 270, at 96.
303. See, e.g., Gendreau v. State Farm Fire Ins, Co., 206 Minn. 237, 288
N.W. 225 (1939).
304. See generally Castleberry note 296 supra; Comment note 297 supra;
Note, supra note 82, at 163-64.
305. See, e.g., United States v. One 1953 Model Glider Trailer, 120 F.
Supp. 504 (E.D.N.C. 1954); State v. Parsons, 70 Ariz. 399, 222 P.2d 637 (1950);
Simmons v. State, 23jind. 489, 129 N.E.2d 121 (1955). See generally SuxpARo's,
306. See generally 1. HouEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 48-51, 7071, 104-05.
307. In one sense, however, it can be said that the hybrid nature of the
mobile home facilitated its development by allowing it to work into the housing
market before confronting the conservatism of the housing institutions. M.
DRURY, supra note 16, at 120-23. Housing and automobile regulatory bodies also
let it slip through the interstices with a minimum of regulation. MOBILE HOMES,
supra note 16, at xii; see Lemert, Notes on Research and Teaching: Is there a
Natural History of Social Problems?, AM. SOCIOLOGICAL REV., Apr. 1951, at 217,
222; FORBES, supra note 110, at 53-54.
308. See, e.g., Brownfield Subdivision, Inc. v. McKee, 61 Ill. 2d 168, 334
N.E.2d 131 (1975); Crawford v. Boyd, 453 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. Ct. App. 1970). See
generally B. HOnES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 335-46; SHEPARD'S, supra
note 48, at 135-52; Bartke & Gage note 215 supra; Moore, supra note 210, at 1921; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 112-14; 25 DE PAUL L. REV. 553 (1976);
Use of Trailer or Similar Structure for Residence Purposes as Within Limitation
of Restrictive Covenant, Zoning Provision, or Building Regulation, Annot., 96
A.L.R.2d 232, 263-65 (1964).
309. See, e.g., Reim Estate, 21 Pa. D. & C.2d 650 (1960); Little Estate, 8
Pa. D. & C.2d 468 (1956).
310. As realty, the mobile home might fall within the terms of a contract
for the sale of the underlying land. See, e.g., Gomez v. Dykes, 89 Ariz. 171, 359
19771
tracts." Moreover, the applicability of common law rules has
been similarly influenced by this dichotomy; if the mobile home
is considered realty there is some authority for imposing liability
for housing construction defects on the primary lender 31' while if
considered personalty the mobile home may be covered under
common law warranties313
Despite all the confusion, the courts have generally concluded that the mobile home is some form of real property once
the wheels have been removed and the home affixed to the land
by means of a foundation and utility connections.3 ' Ultimately,
it may be irrelevant whether the mobile home is considered realty
or personalty; for example, if considered a "vehicle," the mobile
home may be excluded under a statute limiting parking time in
the community, whereas if considered a "dwelling," it may be
excluded under a zoning statute requiring a certain minimum
square footage. 15
B.
Many problems experienced by mobile home owners have
been caused by the shortage of sites on which to place their
homes. Owners now recognize that obtaining good park space is
one of their most serious concerns." 6 With perhaps fifty percent
P.2d 760 (1961); Clifford v. Epstein, 106 Cal. App. 2d 221, 234 P.2d 687 (1951).
See generally Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 407-08.
311. See, e.g., Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Denniston, 237 Ark. 768,
376 S.W.2d 252 (1964); Meccage v. Spartan Ins. Co., 156 Mont. 135, 477 P.2d
155 (1970). See generally B. HoDEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 353-59;
SHEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 46-48; Legal Questions, supra note 232, at 416-17.
312. Connor v. Great W. Say. & Loan Assoc., 73 Cal. Rptr. 369, 69 Cal.
2d 850, 447 P.2d 609 (1968). The holding of this case was subsequently restricted
by legislative enactment. See CAL. Civ. CODE § 3434 (West 1970). Connor has
not been followed by courts of other jurisdictions. But see PLI 1975, supra note
333, at 83 (cases cited not involving mobile homes). Although Connor dealt with
a lender for a real estate development, its reasoning arguably could also apply
to impose such liability on the financial backers of manufacturers of defective
personal property. Therefore, the characterization of mobile homes as realty or
personalty would seem immaterial in this situation.
314. B. HODES & G. RoPEaSON, supra note 5, at 66.
315. See Freilich, Missouri Law of Land Use Controls: With National
Perspectives, 42 U. Mo. KANSAS CTy L. REV. 1, 55 (1973).
316. H. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 11; Buying a Mobile Home,
[Vol, 44
of all mobile homes located in parks, " 7' occupancy rates have
generally been very high, often as much as 100 percent." ' Because
the search for park space is often arduous, :' " owners have been
warned to locate a space before purchasing mobile homes or moving them to new areas.""9 The cost of preparing a single private
lot, possibly exceeding $5,000, :11 itself usually precludes this alternative solution even in the absence of regulatory impediments
to private lot development.
The lack of adequate parks has been acknowledged by dealers and manufacturers as one of the greatest hindrances to an
:' and both groups have been
expanded mobile home market, 22
Feb. 1961, at 6; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 60; see
Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 38; FORTUNE, supra note 22, at 174-78.
317. See note 129 supra.
318. See I D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 50 (94.6%); MoBLE
HOMES, supra note 16, at 55 (94% in 1972); Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra
note 132, at 812 n.27 (95.8% in 1968); U.S. NEWS, supra note 99, at 85 (97%);
Hoyt, supra note 16, at 6 (95%); Porter, Look Hard at Place to Put Mobile
Home, Clev. Plain Dealer, June 11, 1976, § B, at 16 (94% in 1972); The Mobile
Home Industry, Wall Street Transcript, Mar. 16, 1970, at 19,930-31 (98%);
Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 26 (up to 100% in Santa Clara County, Cal.,
in 1967); Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at 36 (99% in Denver in 1968).
But see U.T. Project, supra note 35, at 37 (60% in 1972). Especially in recent
years, occupancy rates have varied greatly by area. See Salinas, supra note 200,
at 290, 294; Smith, supra note 127, at 40, 52; U.S. NEws, supra note 99, at 8485; Factory-Built Homes are Gaining But-,U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., Oct. 11,
1971, at 70.
319. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 58; The Mobile Home Isn't So
Mobile Any More, Bus.WEEK,Mar.16,1957, at 44, 46; The Consumers Observation Post, CONSUMERS' RESEARCH MAGAZINE, Jan. 1974, at 6; see M. DRuRY, supra
note 16, at 43-45; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 53, 81; CHANGING TIMES,
supra note 16, at 7, 11; Hegel, supra note 138, at 9. But see M. DRURY, supra
note 16, at 29; BARRON'S, supra note 128, at 11, 18; N.Y. Survey,supra note 157,
at 100.
320. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 186; Coffee, The Now Trend:
Barely-Mobile Homes, MECHANIX ILLUSTRATED, Feb. 1976, at 39, 98; Loving,
Financing Mobile Home Parks: A More Marketable Investment, MORTGAGE
BANKER, Nov. 1972, at 14, 19; A Brand-new Home for $6,000, CHANGING TIMES,
Apr. 1968, at 39, 42; CONSUMER REP., supra note 109, at 113, 117; Mobile Homes
and RVs, CONSUMERS' RESEARCH MAGAZINE, Oct. 1976, at 142, 144.
321. See Watkins, supra note 199, at 104-05.
322. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 78-79; 1 D. NULSEN & R.
NULSEN, supra note 13, at 82; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 67; Osman, supra
note 60, at 42, 45; Randall, supra note 143, at 361; Willatt, supra note 116, at
5; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 183. The magnitude of the problem seems to have
CONSUMER BULL,,,
19771
working to develop or promote new ones. 23 Other evidence of the
demand for park space has been the high rate of return on the
park investment, reportedly as high as twenty-five percent, 24 and
the rapid appreciation in the appraised valuation of land zoned
for a park." '
Restrictive zoning practices that exclude mobile homes and
parks or constrain mobile homes within parks are the most obvious causes of the shortage of good parks? 6 Building, health, and
safety codes have had a similar effect," The low status of park
developers among homebuilders has deterred experienced people
from entering the field.' The expense of developing parks has
been a further limitation since the large capital outlay required,
sometimes as much as $5,500 per space exclusive of the cost of
declined substantially in the last few years. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16,
at 30.
323. Kendall, The Invisible Suburbs, HORIZON, Winter 1971, at 104, 106;
Starr, supra note 157, at 41-42; Bus. WEEK, supra note 128, at 146, 148; Infant
Industry Grows Up, FED. RES. BANK OF ATLANTA MONTHLY REV., July 1971, at
129, 134; Homes With-Without Wheels, FED. RES. BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO
MOrrLY REv., June 1969, at 129, 132; Baybak, Mobile Homes: Park Development and Coach Building Attract Big Business As Sales Rise 'n' Rise, Christian
Sci. Monitor, June 12, 1970, at 13, col. 3. Dealer park development often leads
to "closed" parks. See note 138 supra and accompanying text. The manufacturers' attempts to develop parks have not met with great success. MOBILE HOMES,
supra note 16, at 12, 23-24; Magid, supra note 92, at 29; U.S. NEws, supra note
318, at 70.
324. Baybak, supra note 323, at 13 (20-35%); Mayer, supra note 88, at 126,
145 (25%); Salinas, supra note 200, at 290, 293 (14-19%); Willatt, supra note 116,
at 5-6 (10-15%); Mobile Homes: Your Chance for a 2.5% Return, AM. BUILDER,
Feb. 1969, at 8 (25%); Where Housing Market Has Lots of Life, Bus. WEEK,
Sept. 3, 1966, at 148, 152 (18-22%); Builders Move in on Mobile-Home Boom
As Land Developers, HoUsE & HOME, Mar. 1969, at 4-5 (2-18%); HOUSE &
HOME, supra note 60, at 64, 90 (10-14%); Shortage Answer, supra note 60, at
21,799 (20-25%). But see CONSTRUCTION REV., supra note 109, at 4, 7; U.S. NEWS,
supra note 99, at 84-85; U.S. NEWS, supra note 318, at 70.
325. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 58-59.
326. Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 811; Mobile
Homes: Growth Field, FINANCIAL WORLD, Feb. 16, 1966, at 13; Note, supra note
144, at 110-11; see Legislation Necessity, supra note 132, at 216.
327. See note 209 supra and accompanying text.
328. HousE & HOME, supra note 324, at 4; see FORBES, supra note 110, at
53-54. The skyrocketing cost of conventional housing is now forcing homebuilders to consider the mobile home market. Murray, supra note 129, at 53, 55.
[Vol, 44
the land, is often prohibitive.3 29 High land values have added
considerably to the cost of parks and would have done so even
without restrictive zoning.3 The expense of the large parcels of
land needed to make the project commercially feasible,331 zoning
fights,' 132 and finance charges3 have also inflated the costs of
development. The amenities expected or required of a modern
park have taken their toll. '4 Finally, the time period needed to
realize a profit has required that the developer be well capitalized.',"
Modernization of older parks has not satisfied the need for
more high quality parks. The cost of improvement is high for
some of the same reasons that initial development is so expensive."' Furthermore, the increased space required for newer,
larger mobile homes and the greater expected amenities have
329.
1974).
330.
Quick Facts, supra note 5, at 9 ($3,500-$5,500, exclusive of land, in
UT Project, supra note 35, at 29; see Breeze & Altman, supra note
81, at 31, 36-37. In 1969 prices ran from $250 to $10,000 per acre. Woods &
Morris, supra note 104, at 37.
331. Breeze & Altman, supra note 81, at 31,37; HOUSE & HOME, supra note
45, at 60, 67.
332. HOUSE & HOME, supra note 45, at 60, 67; see B.HODES & G. ROBERSON,
supra note 5, at 189; Galligan, supra note 270, at 26.
333. It seems incongruous to state on the one hand that the return on park
investment is high but on the other hand that the cost of financing the development is also high. One would think the financers would be vying to lend money
for parks. The only explanation seems to be that the institutional lenders are
wary of the uncertainty of this form of investment, especially in light of the large
size of the necessary loans. See Loving, supra note 320, at 24; O'Neill, Mobile-
Home Lesson: There's a Big Difference Between Sticking Your Head in the Sand
and Keeping Your Ear to the Ground, HOUSE & HOME, Aug. 1965, at 77; HousE
& HOME, sopra note 92, at 136, 142; UT Project, supra note 35, at 102. See also
Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 37; HOUSE & HOME, supra note 324, at 4, 8.
But see Salinas, supra note 200, at 290, 294; Wood, supra note 65, at 42-43. For
a general discussion of the financing of parks, see PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE,
MOBILE HOME FINANCING 79-128 (1975) [hereinafter cited as PLI 1975]; Loving,
334. Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 38; Breeze & Altman, supra note
81, at 31, 37.
335. House & HOME, supra note 45, at 60, 67; see O'Neill, supra note 333,
at 77;
CONSTRUCTION REV.,
supra note 109, at 4, 7.
336. See Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8, at 37. The cost of acquiring
additional land can be prohibitively expensive. Wang & Travis, supra note 143,
at 24.
19771
made modernization impractical."' Perhaps most importantly,
the older parks have continued to attract a great amount of business. The cost of moving the mobile home retards the desire to
seek a more satisfactory location.m Stringent rules in the new
parks, such as the prohibition of children, pets, and older mobile
homes, also have added to the appeal of the lower quality, usually
older parks.A'
Because of the shortage of park spaces, parks have had monopolistic leverage over owners.14 Park rental fees have often been
unrelated either to the amenities or conveniences offered or to the
abuse of the management's power
development costs."' General
34 2
uncommon.
been
not
has
C.
Public Attitudes Concerning Mobile Homes and Owners
The primary explanation for the tribulations of mobile home
owners, and to some extent of parks, is that mobile homes and
owners are perceived by the general populace as being undesirable. This attitude makes it politically expedient for governmental
officials to ignore the owners' plights. Upon examination the
main bases for this perceived undesirability appear to be that
owners make an insufficient tax contribution to the local government; owners themselves are undesirable people; mobile homes
and parks are aesthetically unappealing; mobile homes are not a
legitimate form of permanent housing; and mobile homes and
parks depress the value of surrounding land.
337. See Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 24, 34; Mobile Home Industry,
supra note 8, at 37; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 67-68.
338. Connett, supra note 15, at 33; see notes 140-42 supra and accompanying text.
339. Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 23; see Free, Creative Management, Market Analysis Save Obsolescent Trailer Parks, J. PpOP. MANAGEMENT,
Nov./Dec. 1969, at 278-79; Salinas, supra note 200, at 290, 292, 294; Mobile
Home Industry, supra note 8, at 37.
340. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 59; Bartke & Gage, supra note 215,
at 512 n.100; Clark, supra note 75, at 12; Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 145;
Legislation Necessity, supra note 132, at 219; Note, supra note 144, at 104; Fla.
Hearings, supra note 130, at 4.
341. Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 12; Chattanooga Study, supra note
260, at 19-20.
[Vol. 44
1. Insufficient Taxation
The most commonly voiced objection is that mobile home
owners do not pay their share of the taxes needed to support the
governmental services they receive. 3 Among those services for
which payment allegedly is not made are utilities, 344 police protection,4 ' and roads. 3 ' Generally, however, this criticism is based on
impressions, not facts. 4 7 The few serious studies of the question
tend to indicate that today owners do pay for the services they
receive.:"" Furthermore, the park itself fulfills many governmental
functions; owners pay for services by means of rent to the park,
which in turn maintains local roads and provides utilities, among
T
other things.'
Differences in the forms of taxing mobile homes and conventional housing have led people to assume that unfairly low taxes
have been imposed upon mobile home owners25" Historically,
mobile homes were in fact often taxed inadequately since taxing
statutes not designed to deal with permanent housing were applied to them. 5' As discussed before, the most common test of tax
fairness is "horizontal equity," that is, people in like situations
343. 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 362-63; M. DRURY, supra note 16,
at 52, 119; Moore, supra note 210, at 3-4, 22; Note note 264 supra; Housing and
Urban Development: Mobile Home, Other Amendments Add to Impact of
Housing Measure, NAT'L J., Nov. 1, 1969, at 23; Trailer Test, TIME, Nov. 23,
1936, at 66, 68; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62; Tri-County Regional Planning
Comm'n (Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford Counties, Illinois), The Mobile Home and
Its Place 7 (1970) [hereinafter cited as Illinois Report].
344. Mobile Homes: One Solution to the High Cost of Building, CONSUMER
BULL., Feb. 1970, at 23.
345. Id.
346. See Lakeland Bluff, Inc. v. County of Will, 114 I1. App. 2d 267, 274,
252 N.E.2d 765, 770 (1969).
347. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 122; see Margolis note 35
supra.
348. See HOUSE & HOME, supra note 92, at 136, 141; Sunnyvale, Cal.,
Dep't of Community Development, Mobile Home Parks 1 (1967) [hereinafter
cited as Cal. Report]; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 39-40.
349. See Newcomb, supra note 8, at 64; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 21, 2324; Cal. Report, supra note 348, at 10; N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 17.
350. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 4-5; Berney & Larson, supra note 269,
at 459: Cal. Hearing, supra note 270, at 84-85; see M. DRURY, supra note 16, at
123; Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 40; Murray, supra note 129, at 53-54;
FORBES, supra note 110, at 53-54.
351. PLI 1971. supra note 56, at 10.
19771
should be taxed similarly; the benefits-received test is less commonly utilized. ' Nevertheless, the latter test has been the one
most often used by those who contend that mobile home owners
have not'been taxed sufficiently.5 3
One complaint that has been particularly emphasized is that
mobile home owners have not been required to pay for their
school services.5 4 This is based upon the belief that they have a
disproportionately high number of school-aged children? 5 Statistics, however, show the contrary; owners have fewer school-aged
4
35
children than the average citizen.
Even if owners do not pay their fair share of taxes, it does
not necessarily follow that they should be excluded from or restricted by the community. The owners are not at fault if their
taxes are not more onerous.'- 7 Means are available to levy appro352. See notes 273-74 supra and accompanying text.
354. Osman, supra note 60, at 42, 45; Cal. Hearing, supra note 270, at 10102; Connett, supra note 15, at 37; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 81; see, e.g., Town
of Yorkville v. Fonk, 3 Wis. 2d 371, 88 N.W.2d 319 (1958).
355. Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Hegel, supra note 138, at 46; see, e.g.,
Karen v. Town of East Haddam, 146 Conn. 720, 155 A.2d 921 (1959); Town of
Heartland v. Jensen's, Inc., 146 Conn. 697, 155 A.2d 754 (1959); DeQuindre I)ev.
Co. v. Charter Township of Warren, 359 Mich. 634, 103 N.W.2d 600 (1960).
356. 1 D. NuLsEN & R. NULsRN, supra note 13, at 216-17; Greenwald, supra
note 63, at 13; Hegel, supra note 138, at 46-47, 49, 51; Mayer, supra note 88, at
144; Connett, supra note 15, at 37; Chattanooga Study, supra note 260, at 12;
St. Charles County, Mo., Planning and Zoning Comm'n, Mobile Home Parks,
St. Charles County, Mo., 12 (1969) [hereinafter cited as Mo. Report]: R. Boyd,
supra note 203, at 8; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 22; U.S. Dep't of HUD, Housing
Surveys: Parts I and 2, at 85 (1968) [hereinafter cited as HUD Survey]; see
How to Gather Tax Data in Your Community, MOBILE HOME PARK
MANAGEMENT, Feb.-Mar. 1967, at 22: Cal. Report, supra note 348, at 1, 10: Md.
Study, supra note 149, at 2; N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 2. For model
analyses of the impact on schools of a mobile home park, see Proposed Park,
supra note 157, at 53-55; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 199. Local officials are more
likely to approve adult parks that will not threaten the school population,
Moa1E HOMES, supra note 16, at 71. This encourages parks to restrict children.
C. GIHsoN, supra note 74, at 24; PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 21; Bus. WEEK, supra
note 324, at 152; see Vickers v. Township Comm. of Gloucester Township, :37
N.J. 232, 181 A.2d 129 (1962).
357. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 113; M. DauRY, supra
note 16, at 127; Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 64. It has been noted that
mobile home owners, parks, and industry reinforce suspicions that mobile horne
owners do not pay their fair share by lobbying against the taxation of mobile
[Vol. 44
priate taxes, and failure to utilize those means should not result
in discrimination against mobile homes.-" Moreover, were sufficient means to tax mobile homes not available, the question of
whether or not local governments should prevent or limit the
placement of mobile homes and favor more taxable uses would
still remain.r 911 Conventional single-family owners pay for less of
:
the benefits they receive than do mobile home owners in parks, 3"f
yet objections to this tax inequity are rare? 1 ' Housing should be
available to all, with some choice as to the form of that housingY'
2.
Undesirable Characteristics of Mobile Home Dwellers
A common opinion is that mobile home owners are not the
kind of people that a community would wish to have as residents. 3' Stereotyped as irresponsible,3 ' immoral," uneduhomes as realty instead of personalty in order to save a few dollars per year.
FORRES, supra note 110, at 53-54.
358. See Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc., 222 A.2d
315, 319 (Del. 1966); E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 9-10, 113, 118, 122;
Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 40-41; Md. Study, supra note 149, at 19;
Mo. Report, supra note 356, at 32.
359. See Lakeland Bluff, Inc. v. County of Will, 114 11. App. 2d 267, 277,
252 N.E.2d 765, 770 (1969): Vickers v. Township Comm. of Gloucester Township, 37 N.J. 232, 265, 181 A.2d 129, 147 (1962) (dissenting opinion); C. GIBsoN,
supra note 74, at 40; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 62; Cal. Report, supra note 348,
at 9. But ee Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 41.
360. PLI 1971, supro note 56, at 20: see Cal. Report, supra note 348, at
10.
361. See Bair, supra note 208, at 18-19; Carter, supra note 210, at 27.
362. Weeks, Fitting Mobile Homes to the Community-An Overview, Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, Univ. of N.H., Memo 1IB-18A
(1972); see Vickers v. Township Comm. of Gloucester Township, 37 N.J. 232,
265. 181 A.2d 129, 147 (1962) (dissenting opinion); B. HOnES & G. ROBERSON,
363. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 15-16; Note note 210 supra; Note note
228 supra: see Cady v. City of Detroit, 289 Mich. 499, 514, 286 N.W. 805, 810
(1939); Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 6-7; Meyer, supra note 71, at 36; TIME,
supra note 343, at 68; Margolis, supra note 35, at 10; Housing Supply, supra note
218, at 6. But see M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 16.
364. See Andrachek, supra note 40, at 30.
365. Bair, supra note 208, at 18; see Cady v. City of Detroit, 289 Mich.
499, 286 N.W. 805 (1939) (city counsel argued that trailer living leads to immorality among children); Note note 208 supra; Kneeland, From "Tin Cons on
Wheels" to the "Mobile Hornes, '"N.Y. Times, May 9, 1971, § 6 (Magazine), at
18.
19771
cated, 66 low-income'
7
rootless drifters,
'
mobile home owners
have been traditionally considered unlikely to make civic or political contributions." Their allegedly objectionable lifestyle370 has
been used to rationalize and excuse the actions of communities
in hindering the introduction of mobile homes.
This pejorative characterization is today an inappropriate
hangover from a bygone period when "travel trailers" and "trailer
courts" lacked basic amenities.37" ' A large percentage of the original trailerites was migratory. Such persons were perceived as
threatening traditional values 7 and were held in low esteem.7
366. See Mich. Task Force, supra note 51, at 51.
367. Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Increasing Use Over Nation Fails to Stem
Opposition, N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 1971, at 16, col. 1; Connett, supra note 15, at
4; see M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 147; Meyer, supra note 71, at 36; CONSUMER
REP., supra note 109, at 117; FORBS, supra note 88, at 20; Mich. Task Force,
368. 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 845; 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202,
at 549; M. DRuRY, supra note 16, at 15, 17, 89; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at
54; Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Osman, supra note 60, at 42, 45; Comment note
203 supra; Kneeland, supra note 365, at 18; Use and Abuse, supra note 279, §
E, at 16, col. 1; Connett, supra note 15, at 4; Mo. Report, supra note 356, at 5;
see Hornstein v. Lovett, 221 Ga. 279, 144 S.E.2d 378 (1965); Yorkville v. Fonk,
3 Wis. 2d 371, 88 N.W.2d 319 (1958), appeal dismissed, 358 U.S. 58 (1958);
Andrachek, supra note 40, at 30; Eshelman, supra note 209, at 302; FORBES,
supra note 88, at 20; Hegel, supra note 138, at 22. See generally Whyte, The
Transients, FORTUNE, June 1953, at 129; Comment, supra note 203, at 738 n.2
(and authorities cited therein); Note, supra note 228, at 703 n.14 (and authorities cited therein).
369. 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 549; M. DRURY, supra note 16, at
15; Osman, supra note 60, at 42, 45; Comment note 203 supra; Note note 210
supra; FORTUNE, supra note 22, at 174, 178; Use and Abuse, supra note 279,
§ E, at 16, col. 1; see Bair, supra note 208, at 18; CONSUMER REP., supra note
109, at 113, 117.
370. See M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 15; Bair, supra note 208, at 18;
Osman, supra note 60, at 42.
371. 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 547; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at
29; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 14; Carter, supra note 210, at 17; French
& Hadden, An Analysis of the Distributionand Characteristicsof Mobile Homes
in America, 41 LAND EcoN. 131, 132 (1965); Gerloff, Mobile Homes in the Inner
City?, J. FED. HOME LOAN BANK BD., Nov. 1970, at 21; Connett, supra note 15,
at 4; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 65; Mobile Home Industry, supra note
8, at 1; see Salinas, supra note 200, at 290-92; Comment, supra note 203, at 751
n.66; Note, supra note 228, at 703-04; Wall Street Transcript, supra note 318,
at 19,930-31.
372. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 82, 85-87.
373. See D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 46-48.
[Vol. 44
For that reason, a belief that the modern owner is also transient
often includes the unfavorable connotations associated with the
earlier image. Because housing is considered a symbol of social
status, and mobile homes are considered to have low status, mobile homes have signified the social inferiority of their inhabitants. "4 Additionally, the mobile home has been caught in an
injurious cycle. Inadequate or nonexistent community planning
has forced mobile homes into substandard locations and conditions. A few decades ago many parks were slums;373 today, unfortunately, some of the poor ones continue to operate. " Located in
highly visible places along highways and in commercial and industrial zones, these earlier parks have provided some evidence
supporting the charges of undesirability.)"1 The newer, better
parks have been placed on much less visible sites. The phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy has made this pattern difficult
to break.
Relevant in determining the validity of the stereotype are the
motivations of those who purchase mobile homes. If the actual
reason for purchasing is to identify with the stereotype considered
by others to be objectionable, then this characterization would
more likely be true. The studies, of course, fail to confirm this
374. PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 19; see Roberts, From Common Law
Logic-Chopper to Land-Use Planner: Eulogy for the Lawyer as Social Engineer,
53 CORNELL L. RaV. 957, 982 (1968); J. Meyers, supra note 199, at 2, 11.
375. PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 41; Moore, supra note 210, at 2-3; Trailer
Parks: They Mushroom into a Thriving Business Across the Nation, BARRON'S,
Sept. 26, 1955, at 15; see Starr. supra note 157, at 43; Van Iden, supra note 287,
at 197; FORTUNE, supra note 22, at 174, 178; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at
89; Note, supra note 228, at 702-03; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 6. For
vivid descriptions of park slums, see generally Wellington, supra note 199, at
418; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at ch. VII.
376. E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 1-2; MOBILE HoMES, supra
note 16, at 58, 78; Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 39; Comarow, supra note
7, at 92; D. Morris, The Zoning Power and Mobile Homes: A Study of Columbus, Ohio, 36 (1973) (unpublished thesis in University of Tennessee Library);
see E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 119; Moore, supra note 210, at 2;
Note, supra note 264, at 338; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 10, 115-16; note 196
supra and accompanying text. For a bleak picture of some of the parks in
operation, see generally Meyer, supra note 71, at 33; Mobile Homes: The New
Ghetto.s,
SATURDAY REV.,
Sept. 23, 1972, at 51.
377. Proper Zoning. supra note 216, at 96-97; see Woods & Morris, supra
note 104. at 42; Kneeland, supra note 365, at 18; D. Morris, supra note 376, at
38.
197 71
assumption. The primary reasons cited""A for living in a mobile
home are economy,'711 the preference to own rather than to rent,""
fewer maintenance requirements," ' mobility," 2 use as a retirement home,3'1 convenience, ' " and the assumption of a new lifestyle.3 ', Two of these reasons, the desire for mobility and a new
lifestyle, arguably support the truth of the stereotype. As in the
case of other Americans, however, it is the desire to establish
personal freedom and identity through the positive quest for mobility and changing life patterns that is pursued, not the negative,
poor-tramp stereotype from the past. :'
The actual attributes of the modern mobile home owner fail
to support other aspects of the stereotype."' Even though there
is little evidence to rebut the charge of irresponsibility, an inference against it is raised by the good record of mobile home financing . " Similarly, there is little evidence regarding the owners'
378. No two questionnaires are alike. The surveys cited at notes 379-86
infra are thus approximate, except perhaps the Mobile Home Market survey,
cited at notes 379-84 infra. See generally 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note
13, at 97-101.
379. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 98 (44%); C. GIBsoN, supra note 74,
at 26; Osman, supra note 60, at 43 (10%); Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 60
(48.6%); Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 15 (73%).
380. Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 15 (64%).
381. C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 26; Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 94;
Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 60 (67.9%); Mobile Home Market, supra note
15, at 15 (48%).
382. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 98 (17%); Mayer, supra note 88, at
126, 144: Mobile Homes-Fast Pace, FINANCIAL WORLD, Aug. 27, 1969, at 6;
Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 60 (31.7%); Mobile Home Market, supra note
15, at 15 (36%); N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 5 (3.5%).
383. Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 15 (21%).
384.
C.
GIBSON,
supra note 74, at 26: Osman, supra note 60, at 42-43
(46%); Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 15 (18%).
385. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 98; Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 144;
Osman, supra note 60, at 42-43; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 76-77; see I D.
NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 236; Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 94;
FINANCIAL WORLD, supra note 382, at 6; UT Project, supra note 35, at 44. See
generally L. Landis, supra note 4, at 275-324.
386. See notes 396-97 in/ra and accompanying text.
387. Newlyweds and retirees purchase more mobile homes than other
groups of people, far exceeding the next largest groups of purchasers, farmers
and military personnel. The great majority of purchasers are blue collar workers.
See generally MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 14-22.
388. See note 116 supro and accompanying text.
[Vol. 44
standards of morality?" The educational attainments of owners,
although below the national average, are sufficiently close to the
average to refute any charge that they are uneducated.?"
While at times the average income of the mobile home family
has been higher than the national average,3 'I today it is somewhat
below; 32 yet at no time have mobile home dwellers been more
3 93
dependent on welfare assistance than the general population
The high cost of living in a mobile home precludes occupancy by
members of the lowest income group,3"4 and many of the newer
parks implicitly exclude lower-income tenants by rules that regulate the size, price, or age of the mobile home." '
Mobile home owners are not transients. Not only do they
intend to acquire permanent residences when they purchase their
mobile homes, 3"1but they also manifest this intention by actually
remaining as long or longer than the length of time the average
citizen resides in a conventional home. 7 One reason is that mov389. Cf. B. Hooss & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 13-14 ("the danger of
immoral conduct is manifestly less in a mobile home park than in motels or
hotels, which cater primarily to transients"). Less recent writers have also
stated that there has been no lack of high moral standards among mobile home
dwellers. See Lemert, supra note 307, at 217, 220; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at
56, 86.
390. See HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 71, 87; 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN,
supra note 13, at 217-13; Edwards, Klemmack, & Hatos, Social Participation
PatternsAmong Mobile-Home and Single Family Dwellers, 51 Soc. FORCES 48586 (1973); N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 2. But see Md. Study, supra note 149,
at 2 (educational level of owner as high or higher than average citizen).
391. See Mays, supra note 208, at 204, 206 n.20- Comment, supra note 203,
at 738 n.1; Connett, supra note 15, at 4; Mo. Report, supra note 356, at 13; D.
Cowgill, supra note 4, at 25.
392. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 71-72, 91; 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN,
supra note 13, at 219-21; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 15; Edwards, Kleinmack, & Hatos, supra note 390, at 485-86. But see Md. Study, supra note 149,
at 2.
393. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 62-65; Lemert, supra note 307, at 217,
220: D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 85. See generally MOBILE HomES, supra note
16, at 14-22.
394. See 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 221.
395. See Salinas, supra note 200, at 290, 292; Wang & Travis, supra note
143, at 21; notes 169-70 supra.
396. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 73; see Wang & Travis, supra note
143, at 64; Mobile Home Market, supra note 15, at 16. See generally Morris &
Woods, supra note 105, at 61.
397. HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 95; B. Hoos & G. RoBERSON, supra
19771
ing costs can be prohibitively expensive. "' Additionally, some
local ordinances " ' and park rules"", prohibit either transients
themselves or trailers small enough to be towed conveniently by
the owners.
Many factors discourage owners from becoming active in the
community. First, they encounter social discrimination.4 " Second, they are often forced to live under conditions that are not
conducive to a feeling of belonging to the community." 2 Third,
local legislation sometimes withholds full citizenship from mobile
home owners." ' Finally, the park itself is a community in which
the needs for social interaction may be satisfied. Commentators,
nonetheless, have alleged that owners play an active role in the
general community."'
Park residents have typically become park-oriented. The
park provides a "way of life" of which many residents become
enamored. Sharing in this experience is one of the main motivanote 5,at 8; Kendall, supra note 323, at 105-0; CHANGING TIMES, supra note 320,
at 39, 41; Porter, supra note 6,at 9; Chattanooga Study, supra note 260, at 10;
Md,Study, supro note 149, at 2; see Mobile Homes Take on New Forms for LowCost Housing, ENGINEER NEWS REc., Apr. 25, 1968, at 38-39. But see Hegel,
supra note 138, at 49; Mo. Report, supra note 356, at 6. As a result of this fact,
it has been suggested that the term "mobile home" is a misnomer and should
be changed. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74. at 19; FINANCIAL WORLD, supra note
382, at 6; Ill. Report, supro note 343, at 3. The largest trade organization, the
Mobile Home Manufacturers Association, has recently changed its name to the
Manufactured Housing Institute.
398. See text accompanying note 140 supra.
399. See notes 210-12 supra and accompanying text,
400. See Salinas, supra note 200, at 290-92; Wang & Travis, supra note
143, at 21.
401. E.BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 11; Kendall, supra note 323,
at 105, 109; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 60; see J.Meyers, supra note
199, at 11. But see Hasbrouck, Learning to Live with Mobile Homes, VIII Resource Dev. Highlights, Dep't of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Univ.
of Maine at Orono (1973).
402, Note, supra note 208, at 138; see L. Landis, supra note 4, at 72.
403. See Osman, supro note 60, at 42, 45.
404. See Edwards, Klemmack. & Hatos, supra note 390, at 486, 489; Wang
& Travis, supra note 143, at 58; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 85-86; L. Landis,
supra note 4. at 323-24. A high percentage of owners are registered voters. See
Mays, supra note 208, at 204, 206 n.20; Comment, supra note 203, at 738 n.1;
CONSUMER BULL., supra note 150, at 21, 23; Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at
58; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 85.
[Vol. 44
tions for mobile home living,"5 often thought to be more important than the amenities of better housing. 0" Within the park is a
closeness and friendliness greater than that seen in other neighhorhoods 7 These qualities are enhanced by relatively high park
densities"' and by jointly-used communal facilities."" Other contributing factors include the isolated locations of parks4"' and a
"justification syndrome" or "coping behavior" in reaction to popular stereotyping."' Furthermore, in an attempt to sell more mobile homes or to maintain high occupancy, this "way of life"
concept is promoted by the industry"2 and by park management." ' Those who disapprove of this encouraged togetherness
tend to avoid living in mobile homes or parks."'
In summary, there is little or no basis for the common perceptions regarding mobile home residents. Although there are
some differences between owners and the rest of the population,
these differences are not substantial, In any case, presumed undesirability, based upon erroneous misconceptions, is an insuffi405. See note 385 supra
406. U.S. NEWS, supra note 99, at 84-85; see Woods & Morris, Orientation
to Mobih, Home Living, in HOUSING CRISIS AND RESPONSE 22 (E. Morris & M.
Woods eds. 1971).
407.
1 E. BARTLEY &
F.
BAIR, supro note 15, at 12;
M.
DRURY, supra note
16, at 59-61, 66, 72, 89; Woods & Morris, supra note 406, at 23; U.S. NEws, supra
note 99, at 84-85; Hegel, supra note 138, at 51; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 76,
294-95; see Mo. Report, supra note 356, at 17. See generally Edwards, Klemmack. & Hatos note 390 supra. But see N.Y. Survey, supra note 157, at 5; D.
Moore, supra note 17, at 25, 89. Some have contended that park living is socially
less ideal since it isolates the residents from the larger community. C. GIBSON,
supra note 74, at 10; cf. Are Mobile Homes Some Kind of an Answer-Or Are
They an Environmental Cop-Out?, ENvT'L MONTHLY, Nov. 1969, at 1 (no sense
of permanence and continuity).
408. 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 235; Hegel, supra note
118, at 51; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 55-56; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 336.
409. 1 D. NUI.SEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 235-36; Hegel, supra note
138, at 51; see D. Moore, supra note 17, at 90.
410. See Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 20; L. Landis, supra note 4,
al 336.
411. D. Moore, supra note 17, at 53, 85, 193; see L. Landis, supro note 4,
at 337. But see J. Meyers, supra note 199, at 50.
412, See Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 20.
413, See 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra note 13, at 377-78; Wang &
Travis, supra note 143, at 21; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 180.
414. D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 56; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 76-77, 336.
19771
cient justification for excluding a sizeable proportion of the population from preferred areas of residency. " '
3.
Objectionable Physical Appearance of Mobile Homes and
Parks
Mobile homes have been considered undesirable for aesthetic
reasons. They are said to clash with the surroundings and to
destroy the beauty of the environment. " ' Although the designs of
the interiors have encountered little criticism, 17 quite the opposite is true of the exteriors. These have been criticized for their
metallic finish,"" simple geometric shape,"' and lack of variety in
their configurations. 2' A further cause for complaint has been
that the manner in which they appear to be attached to the land
gives rise to the impression of impermanence. 2 '
There are several reasons for the unique exterior design. Limitations imposed by the need to transport mobile homes to their
sites furnish the most apparent reason; manufacture on a production line with standardized components, 22 and the industry's failure to use architects are other reasons.' Furthermore, buyer re415. See Vickers v. Township Comm. of Gloucester Township, 37 N.J. 232,
252, 181 A.2d 129, 147 (1961) (dissenting opinion); C. GrnsoN, supra note 74, at
34; Greeenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 6-7; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 90.
416. See Wright v. Michaud, 160 Me. 164, 174, 200 A.2d 543, 548 (1964);
Town of Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass. 591, 595, 180 N.E.2d 333, 336 (1962);
Koncelik, supra note 8, at 48; Osman, supra note 60, at 42; Swaback, supra note
19, at 322-23, 326; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 344, at 23; Newcomb, supra note
8, at 34; N.Y. Plan, supra note 217, at 95.
417. See Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 130; House & HOME, supra note 45.
at 60, 62. But see Elliott, Long. Long Trailer, BARRON'S, Feb. 23, 1970, at 3.
418. See Martini, supra note 216, at 15, 17; Mayer, supra note 88, at 126,
130; Swaback, supra note 19, at 326; Watkins, supra note 199, at 104; Kneeland,
supra note 365, at 18; Lawrence, Mobile Homes May Be Answer to Low-Cost
Housing Problem, L.A. Times, Jan. 27, 1969, § B, at 1, col. 1; L. Landis, supra
note 4, at 67.
419. See Swaback, supra note 19, at 323-24, 326; Watkins, supra note 199,
at 104; SATURDAY REV., supra note 376, at 51, 54; U.S. NEWS, supra note 99, at
84-85; Lawrence, supra note 418, at 1; L. Landis, supra note 4, at 67.
420. See Wehrly, supra note 131, at 41, 44.
421. See Koncelik, supra note 8, at 48; Swaback, supra note 19, at 326;
FORTUNE,
422.
Default?,
423.
supra note 22, at 174, 178.
See Do You Expect to Get the Mobile Home Park Business by
PROFESSIONAL BUILDER,
Sept. 1970, at 74.
See note 21 supra and accompanying text.
[Vol. 44
sistance has developed against attempts to hide the nature of the
2
mobile home by facile imitations of conventional housing. '
While some resist cosmetic changes to what they consider to be
the "traditional" appearance of mobile homes,' 2 others fear that
a "new look" mobile home, such as one with shingle siding, will
be harder to maintain426 or unacceptable to park management.'
Mobile home parks have been criticized for aesthetic reasons
and have been described as collections of unattractive mobile
homes'2 in crowded,"' cluttered settings."" The public's view of
parks is even lower than its perception of individual mobile
homes.'"' Utilization of the easiest park layouts, such as simple,
symmetrical geometries, rather than layouts in which attractiveness is a conscious goal,'" has lent credibility to the proposition
that parks are inherently ugly.' 3 ' In addition to objections to their
present appearance, there is the fear that parks will inevitably
become slums. '4 The fact that parks are more closely regulated
424. PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, supra note 422, at 74-75; see PROFESSIONAL
BUILDER, supra note 18, at 65-66; cf Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 130 (great
buyer demand causes little incentive to innovate); D. Moore, supra note 17, at
172 ("conceiving of the mobile home as a trailer . . .explains the way of life
. . ,and gives an illusion of luxury and space"). But see Reschke, The New Look
in Mobilehome Living, RETIREMENT LIVING, Aug. 1974, at 22, 24; Wandres, supra
note 33, at 31.
425. See Bair, supra note 208, at 18, 21; Martini, supra note 216, at 15;
Dole, Mobile-Home Pioneer Sees High-Rise Park: Trilevel Structure Tests Market in the Midwest, Christian Sci. Monitor, Apr. 16, 1971, § A, at 9, col. 1. But
see Swaback, supra note 19, at 324-25; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 173.
426. See Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 27.
427. Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 28. See generally PROFESSIONAL
BUILDER, supra note 422, at 76, 78.
428. See FORBES, supra note 92, at 22, 24; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 41.
429. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 1; Mead & Haupert, How
to Get the House You Want, BrrER HOMES & GARDENS, Apr. 1975, at 68;
FORBES, stipra note 92, at 22, 24. Densities as high as 50 spaces per acre have
been reported. See Salinas, supra note 200, at 290-91.
430. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 1; Koncelik, supra note
8, at 48; FORBES, supra note 92, at 22, 24,
431. M. DRuRy, supra note 16, at 42, 111-12; see Mead & Haupert, supra
note 429, at 68; FORBES, supra note 92, at 22, 24; Note, supra note 228, at 703
n.12.
432. See Wehrly, supra note 131, at 41.
433. See Moore, supra note 210, at 4.
434. Morris & Woods, Mobile Home Residents, in HOUSING CRISIS AND
RESPoNsE 14 fE. Morris & M. Woods eds. 1971); Note, supra note 210, at 286;
19771
than regular subdivisions 3" and that deteriorated mobile homes
can be more easily replaced than conventional housing' :" has not
overcome the concerns engendered by the history of the old
parks.'
The sordid past and the continued tendency to judge by the
worst examples of park planning'" have made it difficult to alter
the negative image held by the public. Yet modern parks are
often of very high quality, fully on a par with comparable subdivisions of conventional housing."' It should not be surprising that
there are excellent parks. For several reasons, encouraging excellence in the parks is in the self-interest of the residents who naturally are desirous of an amenable environment. " " First, the quality of the location of the mobile home, as well as its maintenance
and care, affect the value of the home."' Second, this individual
incentive is complemented by strong social pressures within the
park"' and by park rules that for market reasons are aimed at
satisfying the rigid standards required for high ratings in
Woodall's Directory."'
4.
Other Criticisms
Society has been reluctant to consider the mobile home a
Note note 264 supra;see Stary v. City of Brooklyn, 102 Ohio St. 120, 121 N.E.2d
11 (1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 923 (1955); M. DRURY, supra note 16, at
111; Swaback, supra note 19, at 323. See generally French & Hadden, supro note
371, at 220.
435. See R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 16.
436. See Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 60; Koncelik, supra note 8,
at 48.
437. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 15, 58, 111; Woods & Morris, supra note
104, at 39; Carter, supra note 210, at 17; Moore, supra note 210, at 2; FORTUNE,
supra note 22, at 174, 178; Note, supra note 228, at 702; Wall Street Transcript,
supra note 318, at 19,930-31; D. Morris, supra note 376, at 36; see note 377 supra
and accompanying text.
438. See Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 97. See generally E. BARTLEY
& F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 5, 105-06.
439. HousE & HOME, supra note 92, at 136; Wood, supra note 65, at 42,
48; see Comarow, supra note 7, at 92, 94; Mayer, supra note 88, at 126.
440. See Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 39.
441. See notes 104-05 supra and accompanying text.
442. See Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 39.
443.
See id.; Trends and Forecasts, INDUSTRY
WEEK,
Jan. 5, 1970, at 112-
[Vol. 44
legitimate form of permanent housing."' "I can't imagine
anybody preferring to live in a trailer if he could live in a real
home," one mobile home owner was quoted as saying."' Incom-
patibility of the concept of mobility with that of housing,"' the
unfamiliarity of the public with mobile home technology," 7 and
the lag between traditional concepts of' housing and contemporary lifestyles"I have contributed to this reluctance. That mobile
homes, unlike conventional housing, depreciate rather than appreciate," ' and that the owners usually do not own the land on
which they are anchored', have been considered further reasons
to denigrate their value as permanent housing. The federal government has shared this disinclination. Not until 1970, when it
became necessary for the President to include them in the statistics in order to demonstrate more success in meeting housing
goals, were mobile homes officially recognized as a form of permanent housing."'
444. See City of Colby v. Hurtt, 212 Kan. 113, 116, 509 P.2d 1142, 1145
(1973); M. DRURY, Supra note 16, at 3-12; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 15, 19;
U7se and Ahuse, supra note 279, at 16. See generally L. Landis, supra note 4, at
209-24.
445. SATURDAY Rav., supra note 376, at 51 (emphasis in original).
446. See Town of Marblehead v. Gilbert, 334 Mass. 602, 604, 137 N.E.2d
921, 922 (1956); FORTUNE. supra note 22, at 174, 178; Note, supra note 290, at
91; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 10-11, 25.
447. See 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 547-48; Koncelik, supra note
8, at 46-48; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 91; Mobile Home Industry, supra
note 8, at 1; R. Boyd, supro not e 203, at 10-11, 25; D. Morris, supra note 376, at
30, 36.
448. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 75; M. DRURY, supra note
16, at 8-12, 82, 88; Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 64; Mayer, supra note
88. at 126, 146; Osman, supra note 60, at 42, 45; Comment, supra note 208, at
628-29; FORTUNE, supra note 22, at 174, 178; SATURDAY REv., supra note 376, at
51-52; Newcomb, ,supranote 8, at 8; Housing Supply, supra note 218, at 1; R.
Boyd, supra note 203, at 145; D. Cowgill, supra note 4, at 2; J. Meyers, supra
note 199, at 9; 1). Morris, supra note 376, at 30. The author's use of the term
"conventional housing" in contradistinction to "mobile homes" is a reflection
of the popular belief that there is something unconventional, with disparaging
overtones, about mobile homes. The industry uses the term "stick-built housing."
449. M. DRnY, supra note 16. at 87-88.
450. See J. Meyers, supra note 199, at 2.
451.
MomL.a HoMEs, supra note 16, at 10; McDonnell, supra note 36, at
25-27; see Morris. Mobile Homes and the American Multiphasic Response to a
Housing Crisis, in HoUSING CRIsIs AND RESPONSE 3 (F. Morris & M. Woods eds.
1971): Osman, supra note 60, at 42.
19771
The introduction of a mobile home into a neighborhood often
depresses surrounding property values, usually because of its negative impact on the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood., '
This effect on property values has provided the primary ground
for the strict governmental regulation of mobile homes and parks
under the police power."'5
Several other explanations have been suggested for the perceived undesirability of mobile homes. It has been thought that
the admission of mobile homes and parks into a community
brings health and safety problems,"" unsatisfactory population
densities,"' traffic congestion, ' and a shift in the political balance of power.4 Since mobile homes usually have been inherently unable to satisfy local building codes, they have been considered substandard housing."" Construction at a distant factory
452. Note, supra note 144, at 105 n.15; see Wright v. Michaud, 160 Me.
164, 174, 200 A.2d 543, 548 (1964); Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29
N.J. 481, 494, 150 A.2d 481, 487 (1959); Bair, Regulation of Modular Housing
with Special Emphasis on Mobile Homes, American Soc'y of Planning Officials
Rep. No. 271, at 13 (1971); cf Stull, Community Environment, Zoning, and the
Market Value of Single-Family Homes, 18 J.L. & ECON. 535, 535 (1975) (certain
land uses (other than mobile home parks) have inimical effects on the market
value of proximate single-family homes).
453. See Cooper v. Sinclair, 66 So. 2d 702 (Fla.), cert. denied, 346 U.S.
867 (1953); Town of Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass. 591, 595, 180 N.E.2d 333,
336 (1962); Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29 N.J. 481, 494, 150 A.2d
481, 487 (1959); SHEPARD'S, supra note 48, at 281; Carter, supra note 210, at 3334; Stull, supra note 452, at 535; Note, supra note 210, at 292 n.41; Note, supra
note 208, at 126; 78 DICK. L. REV. 605 (1974). Mobile home parks do not depress
adjacent property values, see Proposed Park, supra note 157, at 52; M. DRURY,
supra note 16, at 72, or at least do not necessarily depress property values, see
Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of York Township, 411 Pa. 33, 42, 190
A.2d 712, 717 (1963).
454. See, e.g., Midgarden v. City of Grand Forks, 79 N.D. 18, 23, 54
N.W.2d 659, 662 (1952); Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29 N.J. 481,
494, 150 A.2d 481, 487; Stary v. City of Brooklyn, 162 Ohio St. 120, 121 N.E.2d
11 (1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 923 (1955); Comment, supra note 203, at
738. Mobile homes in general are in better condition than conventional housing.
French & Hadden, supra note 371, at 136.
455. Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 5; see, e.g., Midgarden v. City of
Grand Forks, 79 N.D. 18, 23, 54 N.W.2d 659, 662 (1952); Renker v. Village of
Brooklyn, 139 Ohio St. 484, 487, 40 N.E.2d 925, 927 (1942).
456. Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 5; see Comment, supra note 203,
at 738.
457. PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 10.
458. See Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Swaback, supra note 19, at 324.
[Vol. 44
has normally precluded inspection for code violations for such
hidden items as electrical wiring.' There has been concern that
ugly mobile home junkyards might follow when the units become
unusable."" It has been argued, on one hand, that an influx of
mobile homes will diminish the tax base and thus will inhibit the
economic growth of the community,' and on the other hand, that
other uses of the land might be better for the areas.'" Last, but
far from least, mobile homes have posed a threat to the local
conventional housing market by undermining the need for contractors, real estate agents, building tradesmen, and material43
men, among other people. 0
5.
Effects of Misconceptions
The attitude of the public toward mobile homes and parks
is based on the impressions discussed in this part of the article.
It is not surprising that this attitude has been described at its
worst in terms ranging from indifference"' to intolerance ' to
459. Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Comment, supra note 208, at 626.
460. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 38; Swaback, supra note 19, at 324;
Margolis, supra note 35, at 14.
461. See Town of Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass. 591, 595, 180 N.E.2d
333, 336 (1962); 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 563; Swaback, supra note 19,
at 324.
462. See Town of Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass. 591, 595, 180 N.E.2d
333, 336 (1962); Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29 N.J. 481, 494, 150
A.2d 481, 487 (1959); Wang & Travis, supra note 143, at 5.
463. E. BARnTLY & F. BArn, supra note 15, at 10; M. DRURY, supra note
16, at 119; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 10; Bair, supra note 208, at 18; Hegel,
supra note 138, at 22; see Comment, supra note 208, at 628; Bus. WEEK, supra
note 324, at 148, 152; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 344, at 23; HousE & HOME,
supra note 60, at 64; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 150. Real estate interests often
dominate zoning boards. See M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 134.
464. A survey of park owners indicated that 22% of public and 20% of local
officials were indifferent toward their parks. See Weeks note 151 supra. A survey
of owners of individual lots suggested that 25% of public and 22% of local
officials were indifferent toward their mobile homes. See Weeks note 362 supra.
465. See 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 547 ("hostility"); 1 B. HoDEs
& G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 116 ("hostility"); J. FRIED, HOUSING CaRISIS
U.S.A. 157 (1971) ("scorned"); C, GIBSON, supra note 74, at 33 ("hostility");
Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 34 ("highly negative"); Wang & Travis,
supra note 143, at 5 ("viewed askance"; "bitterly opposed"); Comment, supra
note 203, at 738 n.2, 739 ("hostility"); Note, supra note 208, at 137 ("hostile and
intolerant"); Housing Supply, supra note 218, at I ("viewed with disfavor");
19771
downright hatred. 4" As has been shown, many of these perceptions are inaccurate or outdated. Nevertheless, current caselaw
and ordinances reflect this negative attitude,"7 with many communities imposing restrictive, discriminatory regulations in the
form of effective exclusion,'" time limitations,4" restriction to
parks, 7 0 severe licensing requirements,"' exclusion from residential areas,"' and other inhibiting ordinances.'73
Attempts to rectify the inequitable treatment of mobile
homes are difficult because of the institutionalization of the hostility. Courts cite older decisions as authority to uphold recent,
antagonistic enactments without consideration of whether the
rationales remain valid or, for that matter, were ever valid. 7 '
Mobile Home Industry, supra note 8,at 39 ("hostile"); R. Boyd, supra note 203,
at 115 ("general intolerance").
466. See R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 115. But see Gerloff, supra note
371, at 21 ("emerging positive image"); The Mobile Home Owner and the
House He Lives In, URBAN LAND, Sept. 1970, at 288-89 ("prejudice . . .slowly
disappearing").
467. See M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 134-36; Carter, supro note 210, at
17; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 465; O'Neill, supra note 333, at 77; Comment, supra note 203, at 738-40, 743; Note, supra note 144, at 108; R. Boyd,
supra note 203, at 3, 9-10; D. Morris, supra note 376, at 31. For a discussion of
the reasons for the restrictive regulation of mobile homes, see generally New-
comb, supra note 8, at 34-38.
468. MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 54; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 17;
Carter, supra note 210, at 17; Comment, supra note 203, at 742 n.21; R. Boyd,
supra note 203, at 116; see June v. City of Lincoln Park, 361 Mich. 95, 104
N.W.2d 792 (1960) (mobile homes restricted to specified zone although no such
land available); Rottman v, Township of Waterford, 13 Mich. App. 271, 164
N.W.2d 409 (1968) (some land provided for parks but used entirely for other
purposes without additional allocations for parks); Bartke & Gage note 215
supra; Eshelman, supra note 209, at 302; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 10405.
469. Newcomb, supra note 8, at 38; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 116. See
generally Carter, supra note 210, at 27-28; Comment, supra note 203, at 740-41.
470.
PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 20; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 38.
471.
See Newcomb, supra note 8, at 38; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 116.
472. Newcomb, supra note 8, at 38; see MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at
56; PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 17; Carter, supra note 210, at 17; Note, supra
note 208, at 138. The attitude that mobile homes do not belong in residential
areas is changing. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 137.
473. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 55-57; Comment, supra note
203, at 740; Note, supra note 208, at 125; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 116.
474. See B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 99; Newcomb, supra
note 8, at 38.
[Vol. 44
Older statutes have the advantage of inertia and are difficult or
impossible to amend appropriately.'"1 The better approach would
be to rescind and start again from a more enlightened stance, but
attitudes and vested interests unfriendly to mobile homes clearly
will not be uprooted without a struggle. 76
IV.
CURRENT REMEDIES FOR THE PROBLEMS AFFECTING MOBILE
HOMES
Means are presently available to counter some of the imbalances affecting parties involved with mobile homes. General statutes, common law rules, and, more recently, specific mobile home
legislation have provided some legal remedies. Educational efforts have helped as well by warning buyers of potential pitfalls.
Although there are still salient inequities, a swing toward a better
balance is apparent. No effort will be made here to discuss the
full extent of available remedies, but a brief survey of some of the
more important and interesting ones follows.
A.
Owner Solutions to Problems with the Industry
Remedies embodied in present state and federal law are
available to help the owners combat difficulties with the industry. Some may depend upon whether the mobile home is considered personalty or realty. If the mobile home is considered realty,
under the modern view the owner may have a common law remedy to recover damages for a latent defect of which the seller knew
or had reason to know.477 Furthermore there is authority for allow475.
See PLI 1971, supra note 56, at 29; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 37WEEK, supra note 324, at 152 ("zoning ordinances are based
on the assumption that since early trailer parks were located adjacent to major
highways, that's where God intends for mobile home parks to be.").
476. See Freilich, supra note 315, at 55; Wang & Travis, supra note 143,
at 32-33; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 147. It seems that the struggle, however,
is having some success. See Matthews, supra note 63, at 64, 72; Bus. WEEK,
supra note 76, at 74; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 128, at 34-35; URBAN LAND,
477. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 353 (1965). See also PLI 1973,
supra note 16, at 32. Before the emergence of the Restatement view, the universal rule was, absent deceit or fraudulent concealment, embodied in the principle
of caveat emptor. The remedy for latent defects is not limited to situations in
which the mobile home is deemed to be realty. The owner may arguably recover
on a theory of strict liability regardless of the characterization of the mobile
38; ef Bus.
19771
ing the owner to recover from the primary lender for construction
defects or builders' fraud.7 If the mobile home is considered
personalty, there are many optional remedies for the owner. He
may bring a warranty action on a products liability theory.'
Common law contract actions'" as well as statutory remedies
under the Uniform Commercial Code are available. " , Inaddition,
tort actions using the theories of fraud,"2 strict liability,lu1 and
negligence " ' may be available. State unfair trade and deceptive
practices acts provide further possibilities." The Federal Trade
home as realty or personalty. See Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70,
207 A.2d 314 (1965).
479. See, e.g., George v. Willman, 379 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1963); Wade v.
Chariot Trailer Co., 331 Mich. 576, 50 N.W.2d 162 (1951); American Coach Co.
v. Hopkins, 355 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Ct. App. 1962); Nettles v. Imperial Distrib.,
Inc., 152 W. Va. 9, 159 S.E.2d 206 (1968). See generally Note, Products Liability-Mobile Homes A Neglected Product?, 3 MEM. ST. L. REv. 92 (1972); 70 W.
VA. L. REv. 467 (1968).
480. See, e.g., Green v. De Voe Sales, Inc., 206 Kan. 238, 477 P.2d 944
(1970); Thayer v. Smith, 357 P.2d 1115 (Wyo. 1960).
481. See, e.g., Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 548 P.2d 279 (Alaska
1976); Jones v. Abriani, 350 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976); Minsel v. El
Rancho Mobile Home Center, Inc., 32 Mich. App. 10, 188 N.W.2d 9 (1971);
Fablok Mills, Inc. v. Cocker Machine & Foundry Co., 125 N.J. Super. 251, 310
A.2d 491 (1973); Nobility Homes v. Shivers, 539 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Ct. App.
1976), noted in 8 ST. MARY's L.J. 865 (1977). See generally PLI 1973, supra note
16, at 30.
482. See, e.g., Stryker v. Rusch, 187 N.Y.S.2d 663, 8 App. Div. 2d 244
(1959); Baker v. Jewell, 77 S.D. 573, 96 N.W.2d 299 (1959); Rawlins v. McIntyre,
330 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. 1959); Nyquist v. Foster, 44 Wash. 2d 465, 268 P.2d 442
(1954).
483. See, e.g., Hales v. Green Colonial, Inc., 490 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1974);
States S.S. Co. v. Stone Manganese Marine, Ltd., 371 F. Supp. 500 (D.N.J.
1973); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Casey, 472 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. Ct. App. 1971); Melody
Home Mfg. Co. v. Morrison, 455 S.W.2d 825 (Tex,Ct. App. 1970). See generally
484. See, e.g., Wilson v. Modern Mobile Homes, Inc., 376 Mich. 342, 137
N.W.2d 144 (1965); Kothe v. Tysdale, 233 Minn. 163, 46 N.W.2d 233 (1951);
Robinson v. L-Cart, Inc., 54 Tenn. App. 298, 390 S.W.2d 689 (1964); Nettles v.
Imperial Distrib., Inc., 152 W. Va. 9, 159 S.E.2d 206 (1968). See generally Note,
485. See PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 29-30; Fla. Task Force, supra note
17, at 9.
IVol. 44
Act,"' antitrust laws," 7 and truth-in-lending legislation " ' are
areas of federal law that afford possible remedies to the consumer.
Enactment of specific mobile home legislation has provided
regulations and remedies where none existed before. " ' Yet, minimum standards for mobile home construction, adopted by most
states," have been of questionable efficacy." ' Of greater benefit
to mobile home owners is the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, which provides for the
preemption of the state codes by a federal code as of June 15,
1976.' This legislation alone should do much to offset the disadvantageous position of owners as consumers by assuring the reasonable quality of the product." 3 Furthermore, the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Administration, and the Farm486. It has been reported that 4 of the largest manufacturers agreed to
proposed Federal Trade Commission consent orders to "establish prompt and
effective systems to handle warranty-related complaints." Four Mobilehome
Makers Agree to Correct Warranty-Related Defects, RETIREMENT LiVING, Feb.
1975, at 7-8.
487. The Justice Department brought suit against 3 major transporters for
illegal price-fixing. Suit on 3 Concerns in Transport Filed, N.Y. Times, Dec. 6,
1974, § L, at 67, col. 1.
488. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 43; cf. B. HODES & G. ROBERSON,
supra note 5, at 300-02 (citations of cases based upon state usury statutes).
489. See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 2983.5, 2983.8 (West Supp. 1977). See
generally MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 33-34, 39, 73, 112, 124, 160; Lubell,
supra note 117, at 412-13; Legislation Necessity, supra note 132, at 226; Note,
supra note 82, at 164; Fla. Task Force, supra note 17, at iii-xiii (recommended
legislation).
490. Most states have adopted the ANSI A119.1 or a similar code. For
citations, see Note, supra note 144, at 107 n.18.
491. The state codes were considered inadequate because the model was
developed under the domination of the industry. See 1973 Hearings, supra note
6, at 850, 878-80, 882-83, 888-89, 1134-37; 1972 Hearings, supra note 29, at 36566, 368; McDonnell, supra note 36, at 25, 28; Watkins, supra note 199, at 104;
How to Pick a Really Good Mobile Home, CHANGING TIMS, Mar. 1975, at 17,
20; Hoyt, supra note 16, at 1; UT Project, supra note 35, at 26. See generally
MoBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 166-79; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 46974.
492. National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401-5426 (1976).
493. See 1973 Hearings, supra note 6, at 878; 1972 Hearings, supra note
29, at 366-67; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 481; Bus. WEEK, supra note 128,
at 146, 148; Porter, supranote 54, at 14. See generally MOBILE HOMES, supra note
16, at 170; Blumberg, Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards-Title
VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 8 CLEARINGHOUSE
Rv. 694, 695 (1975). It has been reported that the quality of mobile homes has
improved sharply since 1975, in anticipation of the new federal standard. Murray, supra note 129, at 53.
1977]
ers Home Administration have mobile home mortgage programs
that impose conditions beneficial to owners; unfortunately, for a
variety of reasons these programs have been little used." 4
The most effective safeguard against the problems of owners
has been to take precautions to avoid them from the outset. Information and advice is available from Better Business Bureaus,"'
consumer agencies,' state attorneys general," 7 extension agencies,' and occasionally from periodicals'" and newspapers,1"° as
well as from other sources. Ultimately it is the owners themselves
who, by consulting these sources and planning carefully, can provide the best protection.
The owners, interestingly, have ndt done as much to protect
themselves as might be anticipated under theories of the free
market mechanism. One would expect that those members of the
industry who produce poor products or provide poor service would
succumb to the pressures of competition and either improve or
fail. The continued dissatisfaction of owners with the industry
indicates that this has not been the result. A possible explanation
494. See notes 66-69 supra and accompanying text.
495. See, e.g., Council of Better Business Bureaus, Tips on Buying a Mobile Home, Pub. No. 311-03227 (1975); Council of Better Business Bureaus, Tips
on Mobile Home Selection, Pub. No. 227 (1972).
496. See, e.g.., Ohio Guide note 18 supra;Tex. Guide note 128 supra. For
the method of filing complaints with consumer agencies, see Mobile Homes,
497. See, e.g., D. Kuduk, supra note 16, at 1.
498. See, e.g., Hohn & Knapp, Choosing and Using Mobile Homes, Cooperative Extension Serv., N.M. St. Univ., Circular 459 (1974); Levy, A Mobile
Home in Y6ur Life, Cooperative Extension Serv., Univ. of Ariz. at Tucson;
Shaffer, Mobile Homes: Evaluation and Choice, Colo. St. Univ. Extension
Serv., Pub. No. 9.103 (1974); Tucker, Shopping for a Mobile Home, Cooperative
Extension Serv., Kan. St. Univ. at Manhattan (1975). See generally Mobile
Homes Manufacturers Association, Consumer Facts About Mobile Home Living: Bibliography of Data on Mobile Home Living as Prepared by Cooperative
Extension Specialists, Extension Information Serv. Bull. (1975).
499. See, e.g., Jung, supra note 82, at 430, 438-39; Wandres, supra note
33, at 31, 34; Watkins, supra note 199, at 60; CHANGING TIMES, supra note 491,
at 17; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 316, at 6, 8; CONSUMER REP., supra note 109,
at 113; Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles, CONSUMERS' RESEARCH
MAGAZINE, Oct. 1974, at 133-35; Important Safety Checks for Mobile Homes,
GOOD HOUSEKEEPING, July 1974, at 147; Recreational Vehicles, MOTOR TREND,
June 1974, at 124.
500. See, e.g., Porter, supra note 8, at 9; Weaver, Buying Mobile Homes,
L.A. Times, July 23, 1972, § E, at 11, col. 1.
[Vol. 44
for the salability of poor quality mobile homes is that their major
weaknesses are not readily apparent, being hidden beneath carpeted floors and paneled walls. The inferior quality of visible
materials might not be obvious, such as the inflammability of the
paneling,50 ' or not as important to the purchaser as would be the
hidden defects in the wiring or plumbing. The more visible parts
are often not of substandard quality, appliances being the prime
example." 2 There is also evidence that construction and service
5 3
are not of major concern to most buyers. 0
Most potential buyers have not been influenced by the business goodwill of mobile home retailers. Two-thirds of the mobile
home market consists of new buyers rather than repurchasers,"'
and few new buyers choose dealers or homes on the basis of advice
from other mobile home owners. 5 Many dealerships, furthermore, have been too new to have established a reputation, either
good or bad.5 " Finally, buyers rarely engage in shopping compar7
atively among dealers or brandsY"
503. When asked, "Why did you buy the brand you did?" only 36% of the
owners responded "construction"; the three more common responses were "floor
plan layout" (73%), "price" (51%), and "interior design and decor" (46%). In
answer to the question, "Why did you buy from your particular dealer?" only
15% of the owners said "dealer reputation"; the two more commonly cited
reasons were "dealers had what we wanted" (66%) and "price" (32%). Mobile
Home Market, upra note 15, at 12-13.
504. Id. at 7. Even though one-third of the buyers have previously owned
a mobile home as a main residence, good will is not necessarily relevant to their
choices. When moving to a distant location, owners are likely to sell their old
mobile homes and buy new ones because of the high cost of transporting, the
need to enter a "closed" park, and the desire to minimize park fees. See notes
138, 140, 181-82 supra and accompanying text. Furthermore, manufacturers
have tended to be regionalized because of the high transportation costs. Thus
repurchasers often have no other choice than to buy a different brand from a
new dealer. Tex. Guide, supra note 128, at 6.
505. A survey of purchasers revealed that only 8% first learned about their
dealers from other mobile home owners. Mobile Home Market, supra note 15,
at 12. The survey did not investigate the number who rejected dealers based on
advice of other owners. It did show, however, that the selection process is somewhat haphazard, 51% having learned of their dealers by "driving around" and
27% from "friend or relative" (apparently excluding other mobile home owners).
Most of the remaining buyers were attracted by advertisements. Id.
506. See Tex. Guide, supra note 128, at 7.
507. According to one survey, prior to making a purchase the average
19771
Whatever market pressure exists from competition among
lenders, it is clearly insufficient to effect a significant decrease in
consumer interest rates 08 Even if better rates could be found, the
dealer often has an interest in inducing purchasers not to shop
around; the dealer can profit by financing the sale itself or by
sending the buyer to a financial institution with which the dealer
has a prior arrangement2!"
B.
Owner Solutions to Problems with Parks
Common law remedies against restraints of trade, 10 as well
as antitrust acts,"' have provided some means of alleviating the
severe conditions of tenancy imposed upon mobile home owners
by the parks. Although there are few reported cases, unconscionability has been mitigated by legislative remedies in the form of
the Uniform Commercial Code,112 state and federal unfair trade
practices acts,1 3 and state consumer protection acts.1 4 The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act has effected more open dealing with the owners 1 5 When disputes with the park have reached
crisis proportions, evictions have been prevented under constitutional doctrines,"' general landlord-tenant acts,5" 7 and specific
buyer visits 4.21 dealers and seriously considers 2.61 brands. Mobile Home
Market, supra note 15, at 25.
508. See Jung, supra note 82, at 430, 434-35.
509.
See notes 119-21 supra and accompanying text.
510. See Southland Dev. Corp. v. Ehler's Dairy, Inc., 468 S.W.2d 284 (Ky.
1971).
511. See, e.g., Carlson v. Cimarron, No. 686970 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist.,
filed May 22, 1972). See generally MOBILE HomEs, supra note 16, at 84; PL 1973,
512. See generally PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 22-23.
513. See generally Landlord-TenantRelationship, supra note 132, at 81920.
514. See Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. 234, 316 N.E.2d 748
(1974).
515. 15 U.S.C. § 1701 (1970). See generally PLI 1973, supra note 16, at 4955.
516. See Lavoie v. Bigwood, 457 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1972); Bowles v. Blue
Lake Dev. Corp., 1 Pov. L. REP. (CCH) 2325.51 (S.D. Fla. 1971), dismissed
as moot and remanded, 504 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1974). See generally LandlordTenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 817-18; Legislation Necessity, supra
note 132, at 223.
517. See Ratel v. Tremblay, 201 Misc. 423, 114 N.Y.S.2d 283 (1952). These
general landlord-tenant acts often use terminology that excludes the park relationship. MOBILE HoMEs, supra note 16, at 53, 85; PLI 1973, supra note 16, at
[Vol. 44
legislation designed to cover the landlord-tenant relationship in
parks. " ' In a few states, specific mobile home legislation deals
with other aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship in the park
by requiring written leases, limiting park fees and regulations,
and preventing practices such as tie-in sales."' States have also
imposed controls on the parks to protect tenants through such
devices as health regulations.5 10 The various federal mobile home
mortgage programs, as well as the Federal Housing Administration program for insured park loans,"' have created minimum
standards for sites on which qualifying mobile homes are
placed. -22
The excessive leverage of park management has increasingly
been attacked through such extralegal channels as tenants organizations.2 3 Rental problems have sometimes been avoided altogether by locating the mobile home outside the traditional park
and within condominium parks,524 cooperative parks, "" and mobile home subdivisions."' As previously stated, the best preventa27; Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 818-19; Note, supra note
131, at 101. See also Legislation Necessity, supra note 131, at 224.
518. See, e.g., DEL. CoDE tit. 7, § 7009(e) (Noncum. Supp. 1972); MASS.
GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 140, § 32N (1974). See generally Note, supra note 131, at
101.
519. See, eg., CAL. CIv. CODE § 789.5 (West Supp. 1972); FLA. STAT. §
83.69 (1973); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 140, § 32J (Supp. 1972). See generally
Note, supra note 131, at 104; Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at
821-26; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440; Once Over: States Act to Reduce
Mobile-Home Park Tyranny, CONSUMER RE., Oct. 1973, at 600; Note, supra
note 144, at 104-05, 112-13, 121-25; LegislationNecessity, supra note 132, at 22628, 231-32, 234-35; Note, supra note 82, at 167-68, 172-73.
520. See U.S. Public Health Service, Suggested Uniform Standards Governing Mobile Home Parks (1965).
521.
See 12 U.S.C. § 1713 (1970).
522. See 12 U.S.C. § 1703(a) (1970); 38 U.S.C. § 1819(e)(6) (1970); 42
U.S.C. § 1490g(b)(l) (Supp. V 1975).
523. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 80, 85; Andrachek, supra note
4, at 11; Landlord-Tenant Relationship, supra note 132, at 821; Note, supra note
131, at 123; CONSUMER REP., supra note 130, at 440-41; Hegel, supra note 138,
at 10; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 7.
524. See generally PLI 1975, supra note 333, at 14-15; Connett, supra note
15, at 48-49.
525. See generally PLI 1975, supra note 333, at 17; Connett, supra note
15, at 48-49.
526. See generally N. AsBURY, supro note 149, at 38-39; E. BARTLEY & F.
BAIR, supra note 15, at 40; M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 112; PLI 1975, supra
19771
tive is to promote forethought and planning through information
and awareness.'
C.
Owner and Park Solutions to Problems with the Government
The tools available to owners and parks to attack governmental regulation, similar in many respects, are considered together in this section. The legal approaches are quite limited?"
Occasionally legislation or its implementation has been successfully challenged as a violation of a state constitution"' or the
federal Constitution.'" Courts have invalidated ordinances for
failure to comply with the state enabling legislation s" or for failure to be within the police power? 2 Generally, however, the more
note 333, at 13; Moaiu HOMES, supra note 16, at 57; Woods & Morris, supra
note 104, at 34-35; Martini, supra note 216, at 15, 17; Randall, supra note 143,
at 361; Housa & HOME, supra note 134, at 4; Hegel, supra note 138, at 28-29;
Newcomb, supra note 8, at 42; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 14-15; Mobile Home
Industry, supra note 8, at 35; D. Moore, supra note 17, at 158-60.
527. See MoBILe HOMES, supra note 16, at 85-86; Coffee, supra note 320,
at 39, 100; CONSUME BULL., supra note 150, at 21; GOOD HOUSEKEEPING, Feb.
1972, at 181; Porter, supra note 318, at 16; Ripley, Money Matters: Here are
ABCs of Mobile Homes, Christian Sci. Monitor, July 9, 1973, at 10, col. 6;
Newcomb, supra note 8, at 48-49.
528. For compilations of cases, see generally Annot., 22 A.L.R.2d 774
(1952); Taxation note 244 supra; Application of Zoning Regulations note 201
supra.
529. See, e.g., Wright v. Steers, 242 Ind. 582, 179 N.E.2d 721 (1962);
Crawford v. Borough of Wesleyville, 68 Pa. D. & C. 215 (1949).
530. See, e.g., County Comm'rs of Anne Arundel County v. English, 182
Md. 514, 35 A.2d 135 (1943); Barnes v. Gorham, 12 Misc. 2d 285, 175 N.Y.S.2d
376 (1957); New York Trailer Coach Ass'n v. Steckel, 208 Misc. 308, 144
N.Y.S.2d 82 (1955), rev'd on other grounds, 3 App. Div. 2d 643, 158 N.Y.S.2d
179 (1956); Perrin's Appeal, 305 Pa. 42, 156 A. 305 (1931); In re Falls Township
Trailer Ordinance, 84 Pa. D. & C. 199 (1952). See generally Flippen, supra note
2, at 18-19, 29-30; Comment, supra note 208, at 621-28.
531. See, e.g., Gust v. Township of Canton, 342 Mich. 436, 70 N.W.2d 772
(1955); Zullo v. Board of Health, 9 N.J. 431, 88 A.2d 625 (1952); Devine v.
Mantua Gloucester Co., 28 N.J. Super. 299, 100 A.2d 563 (1953); Stewart v.
Carrington, 203 Misc. 543, 119 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1953); County Bd. of Supervisors
v. American Trailer Co., 193 Va. 72, 68 S.E.2d 115 (1951). See generally B.
HODES & G. RoaRsoN, supra note 5, at 200; Van Iden, supra note 287, at 206;
532. See, e.g., Nichola v. Township of Grand Blanc, 47 Mich. App. 684,
209 N.W.2d 803 (1973); Town of Conover v. Jolly, 277 N.C. 439, 177 S.E.2d 879
(1970); Borough of Mountville v. Miller, 7 Pa. D. & C. 2d 577 (1956); In re Falls
IVol. 44
effective remedies lie outside the legal system.
One method of avoiding the consequences of restrictive legislation has been to locate outside the jurisdictional boundaries of
the regulating body; this is one reason most parks are not found
within municipalities.s" Organized owners and park groups also
have become involved in the political process and have sought the
repeal of unfavorable legislation and the enactment of more favorable regulations.hH Powerful industry associations have aided
these efforts." Yet the lack of consensus on the most appropriate
form for achieving fairness has frustrated the solution of a crucial
problem, the proper taxation of mobile homes."" Similarly, disagreement still remains as to whether or not mobile homes should
be allowed on private lots within municipalities.5 ' At any rate,
whatever strides have been made in the last few years toward
achieving more equitable regulations must be attributed in large
part to the organized efforts of owners and parks.
V.
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION: ELIMINATE THE CAUSES
OF MOBILE HOME PROBLEMS
Legislation designed to offset the imbalances existing among
the parties involved with mobile homes has done much to correct
inequities. For various reasons, nonetheless, many enactments
have failed to provide all their expected benefits. First, improperly conceived legislation aimed at one of the problems relating
to mobile homes has resulted in a solution to the immediate
problem but an exacerbation of a related problem. For example,
in Florida an act was passed to ameliorate arbitrary evictions by
allowing evictions only on the grounds of failure to pay rent,
failure to abide by the law, or failure to comply with park rules
Township Trailer Ordinance, 84 Pa. D. & C. 199 (1952). See generally Van Iden,
533. See HUD Survey, supra note 356, at 68, 72; Connett, supra note 15,
at xii.
534. See Andrachek, supra note 4, at 11; Hegel, supra note 138, at 10.
535. See Quick Facts, supra note 5, at 12.
536. APPALAcHIA, supra note 97, at 1, 7; see Cal. Hearing, supra note 270,
at 1; C. GmsoN, supra note 74, at 38-39; Carter, supra note 210, at 58. Compare
Note, supra note 228, at 710-12, with Comment, supra note 227, at 1033-35, and
Hegel, supra note 138, at 72-74.
537. See notes 213-14 supra.
19771
and regulations."8 By neglecting to impose a standard of reasonableness, the act has encouraged park management to make park
rules more restrictive so that the complete control that existed
prior to the act could be maintained. 3 ' A second problem in mobile home legislation is the failure to provide penalties for violations. Consequently the legislation has had little deterrent effect;
this has been another problem with the Florida park eviction
act. 50 Third, inadequate legislation has ultimately worked to the
disadvantage of the party intended to be benefitted by misleading that party into believing that he is protected when in fact he
is not. An example of this type of deficiency is the uniform mobile
home construction standard adopted by most states, which has
been criticized as insufficiently comprehensive, weak and ambiguous, and outmoded. 4 ' Finally, the absence of adequate enforcement, rendering legislation ineffective and disarming the unknowing intended beneficiary, has presented another difficulty.
It has also been said that the uniform42mobile home construction
standard suffers from this weakness.1
An awareness of the basic causes of the problems relating to
mobile homes can help to avoid some of the pitfalls often encountered in drafting remedial legislation. Some general guidelines for
this approach follow.
A.
Some of the confusion arising from an inability to categorize
mobile homes as either realty or personalty would be avoided if
legislative bodies would explicitly state whether mobile homes
fall within the terms of a particular statute. Unambiguous statements of intention for new statutes and clarifying amendments
for old ones would dispel doubt and preclude the temptation of
courts to decide if a particular law is applicable to mobile homes
by the simplistic process of determining whether the law is aimed
at personal or real property and whether mobile homes fit within
that particular category." 3
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
FLA. STAT. ANN. § 83.759 (West 1976).
See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 82.
Id.
See note 491 supra.
Id.
See 2 R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at 553; Bair, supra note 216, at
[Vol, 44
Too often courts have lost sight of the principle that the
applicability of common law doctrines or unclear statutes should
be determined by the purposes of the doctrines or statutes in light
of the essential nature of the object of regulation, mobile homes
in this case, rather than by ancient labels that roughly character"' The purpose
ize it.
of a building code is to assure minimum
quality; that a mobile home manifestly cannot comply with a
chimney regulation, for instance, implies nothing about the quality of the home. 4"
Mobile homes are inherently hybrids of personal and real
property; thus, in determining their essential nature, the context
should control. When a mobile home is located on a lot for dwelling purposes, it should be considered a "house," "building," or
"single-family dwelling" for purposes of relevant building code
provisions, zoning ordinances, tax statutes and other such regulations. " ' When a mobile home is being towed it should be a
"vehicle." 4 7 Similarly a park is an area in which "homes" are
located and should be treated the same as other housing subdivisions. " ' Of course there are contexts in which the applicability is
292-93; Carter, supra note 210, at 37; Moore, supra note 210, at 15-16; Proper
Zoning, supra note 216, al. 92; Galligan, supra note 270, at 16; Mich. Task Force,
supra note 51, at 30. But see Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 500.
544. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Aird, 108 F.2d 136, 138 (5th Cir. 1939);
Corning v. Town of Ontario, 204 Misc. 28, 121 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1953); Uwchlan
Township v. Carter, t1 Chest. 304 (Pa, C.P. 1963); Bair, supra note 216, at 290;
Carter, supra note 210, at 57; Note, supra note 82, at 168-69; Note, supra note
228, at 716-17; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 23-24.
545. See B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 104, 110; Carter, supra
note 210, at 30-32; R. Boyd, supra note 203, at 91. The new federal mobile home
construction standards preclude the application of inappropriate building code
regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 5403(d) (1976).
546, See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Aird, 108 F.2d 136 (5th Cir. 1939); Corning
v. Town of Ontario, 204 Misc. 38, 121 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1953); 2 R. ANDERSON, supra
note 202, at 550; E. BARTLEV & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 56; Bartke & Gage,
supra note 125, at 507; Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at 459; Eshelman,
supra note 209, at 303-04; Frey & Knop, supra note 19, at 465-66; Comment,
supra note 203, at 749; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 93.
547. See Biasotti v. Clark, 51 F. Supp. 608 (D.R.I. 1943); E. BARTLEY &
F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 56; B.HoDEs & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 45, 155;
Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at 459.
548. See text accompanying notes 215-16 supra. See also Bartke & Gage,
supra note 215, at 498-99; Starr, supra note 157, at 41-44; Proper Zoning, supra
note 216, at 115-16.
19771
not so clear, but the decision should be based upon the underlying
policies. To rule that the nature of mobile homes is irrevocably
fixed by their physical appearance when manufactured is to elevate form over substance in the face of more compelling logic." '
B.
Park management has traditionally been able to exert unconscionable leverage over tenants because of the high demand
for park space. The lack of a free market, produced by local
policies of restrictive zoning among other things, has been the
major contributor to this situation.5 Remedial park-tehant legislation, although possibly providing some relief,' can do little to
ease the overall housing crisis.SU The obvious and easy solution
is to make more park spaces available and there are several ways
to encourage such a result.5
To circumvent parochial interests and facilitate less restrictive zoning, some have suggested the use of regionalH or statewide 55 zoning policies, Land use planning for a larger area is more
likely to result in proper accommodations for parks; the planners
cannot ignore the demand by rationalizing that the next community will satisfy it.
By conditioning the permit to build a park upon the consent
of a percentage of the immediate neighbors, a potentially object549. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 56-57; PLI 1971, supra
note 56, at 62; Berney & Larson, supra note 269, at 459; Note, supra note 290,
at 91-92. See generally Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 499-507; Comment,
supra note 208, at 619-21, 629. Perhaps the leading case that considers the more
fundamental issues involved, rather than mere semantic labels, is State v.
Work, 75 Wash. 2d 212, 449 P.2d 806 (1969).
550. See text accompanying note 326 supra; MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16,
at 81.
551, See note 518 supra.
552. Increasing the availability of sites would also improve the market for
used mobile homes and thereby further ease the housing demand, especially
among the lower income groups. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 6-8.
553. See MOBILE HOMES, supra note 16, at 81-86. But see text accompanying notes 326-35 supra.
554. See Woods & Morris, supra note 104, at 40; Galligan, supra note 270,
at 17-18. See also Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 511-12.
555. See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 6, 37; Bartke &Gage, supra note 215,
at 513-14; Vestal, Planning for Urban Areas: The Fight for Coherency, 56 IOWA
L. REv. 19 (1970),
[Vol. 44
ing constituency can be mollified. ' Since the validity of such
ordinances has been questioned as an improper delegation of legislative powers, 7 and their use has had but limited success in
getting parks approved, 5" this approach should probably be used
only to try to ease well-established community resistance.
Having acknowledged that mobile homes can play a role in
solving the housing crisis,,,-" the federal government should enact
new, workable programs to encourage park development. Among
the purposes of such programs should be the countering of restrictive zoning practices as well as making available easier loans for
park construction.""
The consequences of the supply and demand pressures on
park tenants can also he alleviated by the greater use of private
lots for mobile homes. Those on private lots will have no landlordtenant problems and those remaining in parks will be in a better
bargaining position because of the existence of a viable alternative and reduced demand." ' The techniques discussed in this
section for increasing park supply are equally applicable for increasing private lot supply.
Ultimately, however, the best method of increasing the supply of parks and private lots is to decrease the community resistance to them. In order to do this, the perceived undesirability of
mobile homes and owners must be considered.
C.
Public Attitudes Concerning Mobile Homes and Owners
The law is unable to deal adequately with some of the main
reasons that mobile homes and owners are perceived to be undesirable, particularly the notions that owners are unsavory people
See Esheiman, supra note 209, at 314-15: Note, supra note 208, at
YOKLEY, ZONING LAW & PRACTICE §§ 7-13 (3d ed. 1965);
Application of Zoning Regulations, supra note 201, at 619.
556.
136. See generally 1 E.
557. See, e.g., Williams v. Whitten, 451 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. Ct. App. 1970);
Perrin's Appeal, 305 Pa. 42, 156 A. 305 (1931). See generallv B. HoDEs & G.
ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 270-74.
558. See Legislation Necessity, supra note 132, at 215. See also E. BARTLEY
& F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 106 n.54.
560. The current Federal Housing Administration program of insured
loans for parks, see 12 U.S.C. § 1713 (1965). has not been used very much
because of low mortgage limits. M. DRURY, supra note 16, at 139-40.
561. But see text accompanying note 321 supra.
19771
and that the mobile home is not a legitimate form of permanent
housing. The law, on the contrary, can alleviate some other concerns with great efficacy. It can assure that owners make a sufficient tax contribution. It can insure improvement of the appearance of mobile homes and parks. Finally, it can generate some
relief against the fear that mobile homes and parks will depress
the values of the surrounding land.
Education, of course, is the best method of reversing the
commonly-held negative image of owners." 2 Such bias, based
upon outmoded data at best, is difficult to change. The public
and governmental officials should be informed of the fact that
today the mobile home owner is not significantly different from
the average citizen.' 3 To discriminate against mobile home owners because they are considered different from the average is repugnant to basic policies of our society but, since this attitude is
based upon a vast misconception, it is even more reprehensible.
The industry, parks, and owners have an interest in educating the
public, and they are making efforts to change public misconceptions. -" The law obviously cannot force the public to revise its
prejudices, but it can nullify the more egregiously discriminatory
legislation " ' and can institutionalize more affirmative action. ' "
The feeling that the mobile home is not a legitimate form of
permanent housing cannot be easily countered. What constitutes
legitimate forms of permanent housing and why public opinion
does not include mobile homes in that category are questions yet
to be answered. Research in this area is important; 7 mobile
homes are here to stay for the foreseeable future and certainly
562. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 5, 51-52; Van Iden, supra
note 287, at 206; CONSUMER BULL., supra note 344, at 23.
563.
564.
See text following note 363 supra.
See C. GIBSON, supra note 74, at 33; 1 D. NULSEN & R. NULSEN, supra
note 13, at 369-71; Kendall, supra note 323, at 104; Smith, supra note 127, at
40, 54; HousE & HOME, supra note 324, at 4, 8; HOUSE & HOME, supra note 92,
at 136, 141; Mobile Home Makers Launch a Public Relations Campaign, Wall
Street J., Oct. 30, 1975, at 1, col. 5.
565. See text accompanying notes 529-32 supra.
566. For example, the U.S. Extension Service has sponsored conferences
to encourage the acceptance of mobile homes. Margolis, supra note 35, at 11.
567.
PLAN. SCo.
See Knight, Planners and Mobile Home Research, 5 SoClo-EcoN.
213, 218 (1971). See also E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 60;
Bair, supra note 216, at 292.
[Vol. 44
cannot be ignored." The reeducation of the public as described
above would help, as would, perhaps, the legitimizing effect of
greater mobile home use following the elimination of restrictive
legislation.
If mobile homes are undesirable because of the failure of the
owners to pay their fair share of taxes, the law provides the means
to rectify the situation."' It is inexcusable for the government to
restrict mobile homes for reasons totally beyond the control of the
owners and completely within its own control.
The aesthetic offensiveness of mobile homes and parks is
another aspect of the problem that can be treated by the law in
ways other than by exclusion or severe restriction. Aesthetic zoning, although not fully accepted, provides a powerful means of
assuring a minimum standard of acceptability.5 0 Intelligent site
preparation can do much to improve the appearance of a mobile
home and its lot."' Screening, buffer zones, landscaping, porches,
modified roof lines, and conventional siding are among the ways
that mobile homes can be made to blend into the neighborhoodY
568.
See Yeager v. Cassidy', 20 Ohio Misc. 251, 253 N.E.2d 320 (1960);
F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 106, 119-20, 122; B. HODES & G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 65-66; Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 63; Fogarty,
Trailer Parks: The Wheeled Suburbs, ARCHITECTURAL F., July 1959, at 127;
Mays, supra note 208. at 204; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 94-95; Note,
supra note 82, at 175; Note, supra note 208, at 138; Legal Questions,supra note
232, at 401.
569. See text accompanying notes 343-49 supra.
570. See generally I R. ANDERSON, supra note 202, at §§ 7.22-.25;
E.
BARTLEY &
supra note 48, at 209-12; Steinbach, Aesthetic Zoning: Property
Values and the Judicial Decision Process, 35 Mo. L. REV. 176 (1970); Uddo,
Land Use Controls: Aesthetics, Past and Future, 21 Lay. L. REV. 851 (1975);
Comment, The Aesthetic Factor in Zoning, 11 DuQ. L. REv. 204 (1972); DICK.
L. REV. note 453 supra (aesthetic zoning); Aesthetic Objectives or Considerations as Affecting Validity of Zoning Ordinance, Annot., 21 A.L.R.3d 1222
(1968).
Examples of cases involving the aesthetic zoning of mobile homes are
Wright v. Michaud, 200 A.2d 543 (Me. 1964); Manchester v. Phillips, 343 Mass.
598, 180 N.E.2d 333 (1962); Wilkerson v. Murray, 471 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. 1971);
New Boston v. Coombs, III N.H. 359, 284 P.2d 920 (1971); and County of
Fayette v. Holman, 11 Pa. Commw. Ct. 357, 315 A.2d 335 (1974).
571. See Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 97; Newcomb, supra note 8, at
34. See generally N.Y. Plan note 217 supra; Oliver, Landscaping the Mobile
Home, The Pennsylvania State Univ., College of Agriculture Extension Serv.,
Special Circular 155.
572. See Mayer, supra note 88, at 126, 130; Swaback, supra note 19, at 324,
SHEPARD'S,
19771
Some models have advanced greatly toward acquiring the appearance of conventional housing."' Parks can utilize similar devices . " ' By enacting aesthetic zoning ordinances, the government
allows the owner or the park to integrate the facility into the
neighborhood without the government's questionable prejudgment that such integration is impossible. Mobile homes can presently be made harmonious with many low- and medium-priced
houses;"' certainly no policy reason forbids the integration of
traditional single-family dwellings and compatible mobile
.5homes. 7
Aesthetic requirements will increase the cost of living in a
mobile home by forcing expenditures for the beautification of the
home and environment. 71 Because there is such a great demand
for housing, especially low-cost housing, mobile homes and parks
should be allowed somewhere in the community without the need
for a significant outlay for beautification."' On the other hand,
the community's purported concern for the economies of mobile
home living should not be used as an excuse for automatically
banning mobile homes from those other areas in which substantial expenditures would be required to make them concordant.
The community's acceptance of beautified mobile homes
and parks will induce buyers to look for more pleasing features
327; Wandres, supra note 33, at 31, 34; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 101;
U.S. NEWS, supra note 99, at 84-85; Newcomb, supra note 8, at 34; Mobile
Homes, supra note 47, at 27. See generally Towards a Movable, Livable Mobile
Home, ARcHITEcTUAL F., Apr. 1969, at 58; Bair, supra note 452, at 36-38.
573. See F. BAIR, supra note 214, at 14; Bringing Mobiles Down to Earth,
PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, Oct. 1975, at 80-81; Mobile Homes, supra note 47, at 26.
See generally PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, supra note 422, at 76.
574. See E. BARTLEY & F. BAIR, supra note 15, at 81-89, 121; B. HODES &
G. ROBERSON, supra note 5, at 15; Bair, supra note 216, at 297; Bair, supra note
208, at 18, 21; Greenwald, supra note 63, at 2, 12; Proper Zoning, supra note
216, at 88-89; Hegel, supra note 138, at 44; Wehrly, supra note 131, at 20; R.
Boyd, supra note 203, at 63, 65-66, 157-58. See generally PROFESSIONAL BUILDER,
supra note 139, at 51; PROFESSIONAL BUILDER, supra note 422, at 76; Bair, supra
note 452, at 33-50.
575. See Wandres, supra note 33, at 31; Bair, supra note 452, at 61.
576. See Bair, supra note 216, at 290, 298-99; Comment, supra note 208,
at 629-30; Bair, supra note 452, at 13, 62, 65. They have been given the opportunity to integrate with single-family dwellings in some areas. Bair, supra note
208, at 18, 21.
577.
578.
See Morris & Woods, supra note 105, at 63.
See Bartke & Gage, supra note 215, at 512.
[Vol. 44
and thereby to exert pressure on the parks and the industry to put
more emphasis on this aspect of the design."' Eventually mobile
homes and parks could become indistinguishable from comparably priced conventional housing and subdivisions.
The tools of the law can indirectly lessen to some degree the
depreciation of the value of property in the neighborhood of mobile homes and parks. Generally much of the depreciation is attributable to the perception that mobile homes and owners are
undesirable. " Community education together with legally imposed aesthetic standards can diminish this objection as discussed above. ' Whatever is done to overcome the resistance to
mobile homes and parks will also lessen the depreciation of the
neighborhood property values.
VI,
CONCLUSION
The housing crisis remains unsolved. In fact, the gap between housing supply and housing demand continues to increase.
Traditional methods of construction offer no solution to the housing needs of low and moderate income families, a group constituting a vast proportion of the population. Ordinary, evolutionary
improvements in conventional construction techniques offer little
hope for reversing the housing shortage. Some relief is possible,
nonetheless, without, a change in the building industry. Society
may alter its expectations with respect to living conditions by
accepting higher density accommodations, less space per resident, or expenditures of larger proportions of family incomes for
housing either directly in the form of higher housing payments or
indirectly by means of additional taxes for government housing
subsidies. '2 Some degree of change in this direction is already
579. Conversely, beautification by the industry and parks of their products would lead to greater acceptance by the community. See M. DRURY, supra
note 16, at I1-12; Martini, supra note 216, at 15, 61; Moore, supra note 210, at
22; Reimensnyder, supra note 96, at 335, 337: Swaback, supra note 19, at 325;
Bus. WEEK, supra note 61, at 96-97; Bus. WEEK, supra note 324, at 148, 150;
ENVT'I. MONTHLY, supra note 407, at 1; Proper Zoning, supra note 216, at 96-97;
Shortage Answer, supra note 60, at 21,799; Chattanooga Study, supra note 260,
at 44; UT Project, supra note 35, at 25; D. Morris, supra note 376, at 146.
581. See Mays, supra note 208, at 204, 206.
582.
See TmRD ANNUAL REPORT ON NATIONAL HOUSING GOALS, HOUSE Doc.
No. 92-136, 92nd Cong.. 1st Sess. 23 (1971); Breckenfeld, Is the One-Family
19771
evident. More seems required.
Radical advancement in housing technology offers an alter-
native or additional way by which to meet housing needs. Modular units and mobile homes provide the prime, current example.
Yet the mobile home experience supports the conclusion that
nonconventional technology will encounter considerable resistance. The difficulties surrounding mobile homes are partially
due to inherent qualities likely to be shared by other new housing forms. Furthermore, even though these difficulties are also
due to unique historical factors, some of the stigma attached to
this form of housing will carry over to other new forms. Much of
the impetus for development of the modular unit, for example,
will probably come from the mobile home industry which has
now gained relevant experience, resources, and marketing networks easily applicable to the similar technology of modular constructionYs3 Dissatisfaction with one product of the industry, the
mobile home, will somewhat undermine confidence in the next
product, the modular home. Even if other new forms of housing
were to come from unrelated industries, the perceived failure of
one experiment will discourage some from participating in another. Thus further incentive for the development of new housing
technology will probably follow from greater public acceptance of
mobile home living.
By constructing quality products and informing the public of
their advantages, the mobile home parks and the industry can
counter the "bad will" resulting from the trailer heritage. Government also has an interest in the maximum use of available technology and can provide additional incentives and impose rational
regulations that will eliminate the errors of yesterday.
The most difficult hurdle-the fundamental resistance to
mobile homes as a form of permanent housing-is psychological.
Some of this resistance probably will be lessened with the passage
Housing Becoming a Fossil? Far From It, FORTUNE, Apr. 1976, at 84, 87-88;
Nicholson, Copeland, Barnes & Browne, Housing: The New Look, NEWSWEEK,
Mar. 15, 1976, at 78, 81.
583. See APPAIACHIA, supra note 97, at 1, 3; Has Factory-Built Housing
Finally Come Into Its Own?, FoRBs, Dec. 15, 1976, at 47; FoRBES, supra note
110, at 53; Bair, Modular Housing, Including Mobile Homes: A Survey of Regulatory Practices and Planners' Opinions, American Soc'y of Planning Officials
Rep. No. 265, at 5 (1971); Bair, supra note 452, at 12.
844
[Vol. 44
of time. Economic pressures of the market place will force more
people to consider seriously the purchase of this type of home
irrespective of personal desires. Increasing public familiarity with
the product as well as constructing mobile homes that look more
like conventional housing will also help to overcome the public
bias. Yet the resistance that accompanies all housing innovations
must be anticipated and minimized since the future will probably
bring radical design changes to ease housing demand and to facilitate the adoption of alternative resources as some of those used
today become depleted.

Housing and Technology: The Mobile Home

Transcription

Similar documents

Tony Group Hawaii, HI

Used - 2010 22` Supra Sunsport 22V HIN US

King Windward Nissan, HI

COOLELF AUTO SUPRA -37°C

SAEINDIA newletter issue 04, 2013

Untitled - BBK Performance

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

English edition

The Mass Culture of Property - Digital Commons at Loyola

Cheers, Profanity, and Free Speech